User talk:202.156.13.11

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

As this is a shared IP address, and if you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Setia Alam has been reverted.
Your edit here to Setia Alam was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Setia-Alam/146218485451742) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

July 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ha, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Arthena^(talk) 11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Setia Alam do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.  
Your edit here to Setia Alam was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Setia-Alam/146218485451742?sk=wall) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

202.156.13.11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is clearly stated on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations that "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims." However why is La goutte de pluie allowed to make claims that " I'm using a new account so the users named above will not be alerted to this report". I am repeatedly accused of being a sockpuppet of users whom I do not know. It is most absurd La goutte de pluie goes around accusing me of being affliated with other accounts mentioned just because I know of the report. Does she not know she left traces all about? I am also a victim of La goutte de pluie who abuses her tools to block whenever there's a dispute for the past few months. By blocking me, you are just showing that accused parties aren't given a chance for fair plea.

I would like to highlight to you the ip flips between 202.156.13.226 and 202.156.13.11 for the whole night. I have never tried to hide that info. You can check they actually overlap.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

202.156.13.11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You call that a review? I added in my comments as an accused party. Someone tries to delete it so I reverted it back.

Decline reason:

New appeals at the bottom of the page please, thanks. And yes, that was a legitimate review, as appeals that focus solely on the actions of others are not considered. You were blocked for your actions; focus on them, and convince us that unblocking you would not harm the encyclopedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For any admins confused about the block log shown on the edit screen, check here for the current block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

202.156.13.11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The appeal is I added in my comments as an accused party. Someone tries to delete it so I reverted it back. I cannot control the IP just so you know...

Decline reason:

You can't expect us to control the IP either, anyway, according the block log - see below - the account is not blocked.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(- 17:04, 6 July 2011 La goutte de pluie (talk | contribs | block) unblocked 202.156.13.11)

Have you given serious thought to creating an account? None of the problems you have experienced would have arisen had you had one.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you violated our three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, I've blocked you for 24 hours. If you wish to make accusations of sockpuppetry, create a new sockpuppet investigation; don't try to insert it into an existing one.

I don't know why the system thought you were blocked before, but when I imposed the block on you just now, the system told me that you were currently blocked, even though you had been unblocked a month ago. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The block one month ago was done by La goutte de pluie. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

202.156.13.11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not doing disruptive editing

Decline reason:

The stated reason for your block is systematically using logged-out editing to avoid scrutiny during a lengthy dispute. You'll need to address that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

202.156.13.11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Am on dynamic IP which flips frequently. Not on proxy.

Decline reason:

Great. That wasn't the reason you were blocked. TNXMan 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

La goutte de pluie abusing tools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#La_goutte_de_pluie.27s_personal_agenda

vandalism

editing despite page protected for content dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.R._Nathan&action=historysubmit&diff=444089777&oldid=443984865

since when is temasek review accepted source? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Tan_Keng_Yam&diff=prev&oldid=444104663

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

202.156.13.11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you are referring to the edits made on S.R. Nathan page under User_talk:202.156.13.10, edits made were not disruptive but to revert vandalism done by IP users. Also User talk: La goutte de pluie had been reverting back to his version, despite disagreement in the Talk page.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=If you are referring to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.R._Nathan&diff=prev&oldid=443958801 edits made] on [[S.R. Nathan]] page under [[User_talk:202.156.13.10]], edits made were not disruptive but to revert vandalism done by IP users. Also [[User talk: La goutte de pluie]] had been reverting back to his version, despite disagreement in the Talk page. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=If you are referring to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.R._Nathan&diff=prev&oldid=443958801 edits made] on [[S.R. Nathan]] page under [[User_talk:202.156.13.10]], edits made were not disruptive but to revert vandalism done by IP users. Also [[User talk: La goutte de pluie]] had been reverting back to his version, despite disagreement in the Talk page. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=If you are referring to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.R._Nathan&diff=prev&oldid=443958801 edits made] on [[S.R. Nathan]] page under [[User_talk:202.156.13.10]], edits made were not disruptive but to revert vandalism done by IP users. Also [[User talk: La goutte de pluie]] had been reverting back to his version, despite disagreement in the Talk page. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALa_goutte_de_pluie&action=historysubmit&diff=444138546&oldid=444138382 Since when is TEMASEK REVIEW ACCEPTED SOURCE?????????????????????