User talk:Aebvtu

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Harrassment by User:Jauerback based on a guideline written by a vandal. The block is interfereing with my writing. I just spent two hours writing, the vandal User:Jauerback is keeping me from posting the paragraph. Aebvtu (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Three things:

1. The block is supposed to interfere with your editing; that's the entire point of it.
2. This does not address the stated reason for your block, which is sockpuppetry... based on a policy, which certainly was not written by a vandal.
3. Name-calling and other personal attacks will not help your case in the slightest.

In order to be unblocked, you will need to explain your actions in relation to the apparent sockpuppetry you have been engaging in. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (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.

Aebvtu is a  Confirmed sockpuppet of Shrpics1812 (talk · contribs). Please make any further unblock requests from that account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't. I don't know the password. Wasn't intending to edit the article more then once. I wrote down this password, however. I spent about a month researching an article, via reading Gospel of Matthew. Deleting that sensable article would be a form of soapboxing, in my opinion, considering the preachers disagree with it. Also, some template messages were put at the top of the article instead of on the talk page, thus disrupting the article. What those message boxes were saying (including the unrealistic policies and guidelines written for them) seems to me to have been an excuse to vandalize the article page by putting the boxes on the article page. Shrpics1812 is not my account, since I can not log into that account. Aebvtu (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)