User talk:Helvitica Bold

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Michael (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

unblock req

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

• This was my first offense of any kind.

• It was a permanent block.

• He deleted my user page too.

• The block reason was "advertising or promotion", not "vandalism". But I don't have anything to do with the parody site I linked to, I just saw it on the net. He never even asked me if I was associated with it, which one would think would be the bare minimum before blocking someone permanently.

• He also blocked my email to prevent me from asking him about it. That seems strange, since the first thing you're supposed to when requesting unblock is contact the blocker.

• This is the the only one of my 200+ edits ever reverted. I have never edited any topic that one might call "controversial".

My 200+ edits were almost all science and advanced math, not trivial stuff, meaning I'm a serious editor, not a kid here for fun. Though I was blocked a month ago, I'm only requesting unblock now because I keep seeing desperately needed improvements and clarifications in the science articles here, and it grinds on me that I can't make the fixes or make info more readable to people who don't understand the topics. When I saw an error in a science article and couldn't fix it, that was the last straw, and I decided to request an unblock.

On the web, I saw a parody site of a topic, thought it was hilarious, and in an uncharacteristic seizure of impulsive bad judgement, I added it to the external links list for the topic here at wikipedia. I figured it would be eventually deleted, and that it wasn't a big deal like altering an article body would be. But if I had known that "vandalism" is this serious at Wikipedia, I never would have even considered it.

It should go without saying that I won't add any more "funny" external links. If I had known it was this kind of serious, I certainly never would have in the first place.

Even if I'm not unblocked, I'd like to request that the reason be changed to "vandalism" rather than "advertising", because "advertising" is factually incorrect since the site I linked to is not mine. If the reason is 'advertising", wikipedia is officially stating something about me that is not true. Saying something about living persons that even *might* be untrue is supposedly a huge big deal at wikipedia (as it should be).

HelviticaBold)

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=* This was my first offense of any kind. * It was a permanent block. * He deleted my user page too. * The block reason was "advertising or promotion", not "vandalism". But I don't have anything to do with the parody site I linked to, I just saw it on the net. He never even asked me if I was associated with it, which one would think would be the bare minimum before blocking someone permanently. * He also blocked my email to prevent me from asking him about it. That seems strange, since the first thing you're supposed to when requesting unblock is contact the blocker. * This is the the only one of my 200+ edits ever reverted. I have never edited any topic that one might call "controversial". My 200+ edits were almost all science and advanced math, not trivial stuff, meaning I'm a serious editor, not a kid here for fun. Though I was blocked a month ago, I'm only requesting unblock now because I keep seeing desperately needed improvements and clarifications in the science articles here, and it grinds on me that I can't make the fixes or make info more readable to people who don't understand the topics. When I saw an error in a science article and couldn't fix it, that was the last straw, and I decided to request an unblock. On the web, I saw a parody site of a topic, thought it was hilarious, and in an uncharacteristic seizure of impulsive bad judgement, I added it to the external links list for the topic here at wikipedia. I figured it would be eventually deleted, and that it wasn't a big deal like altering an article body would be. But if I had known that "vandalism" is this serious at Wikipedia, I never would have even considered it. '''It should go without saying that I won't add any more "funny" external links. If I had known it was this kind of serious, I certainly never would have in the first place.''' Even if I'm not unblocked, I'd like to request that the reason be changed to "vandalism" rather than "advertising", because "advertising" is factually incorrect since the site I linked to is not mine. If the reason is 'advertising", wikipedia is officially stating something about me that is not true. Saying something about living persons that even *might* be untrue is supposedly a huge big deal at wikipedia (as it should be). [[user:Helvitica_Bold|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">Helvitica</span><span style="color:saddlebrown">'''Bold'''</span>]]) |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=* This was my first offense of any kind. * It was a permanent block. * He deleted my user page too. * The block reason was "advertising or promotion", not "vandalism". But I don't have anything to do with the parody site I linked to, I just saw it on the net. He never even asked me if I was associated with it, which one would think would be the bare minimum before blocking someone permanently. * He also blocked my email to prevent me from asking him about it. That seems strange, since the first thing you're supposed to when requesting unblock is contact the blocker. * This is the the only one of my 200+ edits ever reverted. I have never edited any topic that one might call "controversial". My 200+ edits were almost all science and advanced math, not trivial stuff, meaning I'm a serious editor, not a kid here for fun. Though I was blocked a month ago, I'm only requesting unblock now because I keep seeing desperately needed improvements and clarifications in the science articles here, and it grinds on me that I can't make the fixes or make info more readable to people who don't understand the topics. When I saw an error in a science article and couldn't fix it, that was the last straw, and I decided to request an unblock. On the web, I saw a parody site of a topic, thought it was hilarious, and in an uncharacteristic seizure of impulsive bad judgement, I added it to the external links list for the topic here at wikipedia. I figured it would be eventually deleted, and that it wasn't a big deal like altering an article body would be. But if I had known that "vandalism" is this serious at Wikipedia, I never would have even considered it. '''It should go without saying that I won't add any more "funny" external links. If I had known it was this kind of serious, I certainly never would have in the first place.''' Even if I'm not unblocked, I'd like to request that the reason be changed to "vandalism" rather than "advertising", because "advertising" is factually incorrect since the site I linked to is not mine. If the reason is 'advertising", wikipedia is officially stating something about me that is not true. Saying something about living persons that even *might* be untrue is supposedly a huge big deal at wikipedia (as it should be). [[user:Helvitica_Bold|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">Helvitica</span><span style="color:saddlebrown">'''Bold'''</span>]]) |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=* This was my first offense of any kind. * It was a permanent block. * He deleted my user page too. * The block reason was "advertising or promotion", not "vandalism". But I don't have anything to do with the parody site I linked to, I just saw it on the net. He never even asked me if I was associated with it, which one would think would be the bare minimum before blocking someone permanently. * He also blocked my email to prevent me from asking him about it. That seems strange, since the first thing you're supposed to when requesting unblock is contact the blocker. * This is the the only one of my 200+ edits ever reverted. I have never edited any topic that one might call "controversial". My 200+ edits were almost all science and advanced math, not trivial stuff, meaning I'm a serious editor, not a kid here for fun. Though I was blocked a month ago, I'm only requesting unblock now because I keep seeing desperately needed improvements and clarifications in the science articles here, and it grinds on me that I can't make the fixes or make info more readable to people who don't understand the topics. When I saw an error in a science article and couldn't fix it, that was the last straw, and I decided to request an unblock. On the web, I saw a parody site of a topic, thought it was hilarious, and in an uncharacteristic seizure of impulsive bad judgement, I added it to the external links list for the topic here at wikipedia. I figured it would be eventually deleted, and that it wasn't a big deal like altering an article body would be. But if I had known that "vandalism" is this serious at Wikipedia, I never would have even considered it. '''It should go without saying that I won't add any more "funny" external links. If I had known it was this kind of serious, I certainly never would have in the first place.''' Even if I'm not unblocked, I'd like to request that the reason be changed to "vandalism" rather than "advertising", because "advertising" is factually incorrect since the site I linked to is not mine. If the reason is 'advertising", wikipedia is officially stating something about me that is not true. Saying something about living persons that even *might* be untrue is supposedly a huge big deal at wikipedia (as it should be). [[user:Helvitica_Bold|<span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">Helvitica</span><span style="color:saddlebrown">'''Bold'''</span>]]) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}