User talk:Messenger2010

Welcome.

Soybean editing

Hi, if a user is blatantly adding content which is not from a NPOV, consider adding the appropriate warning to their talk page. If they are not so blatant you may want to leave a custom message explaining the problem with the users edit.--Andeh 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy Bean page

The vandalism summary is gone from the history now and the bug that caused that fixed. Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That is content dispute and not vandalism. Please do not report content disputes on WP:AIV, it might mislead the administrators. If you think a user has breached WP:3RR report it on the appropriate page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Yankees76 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol

Sarcasam is so lameJohnpedia 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Something tells me you are not here to build a great encyclopaedia. You are now blocked indefinitely. To appeal this b lock use {{unblock}} on your talk page. Note that your past behaviour (including sockpuppetry) has influenced this decision, and your recent bogus warnings are also evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Messenger2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My warning were legitamte but you are entitled to your opinion. I was never told my warning were not legit. You should not block an editor just for issuing warnings. Request for unblock. --Messenger2010 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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=My warning were legitamte but you are entitled to your opinion. I was never told my warning were not legit. You should not block an editor just for issuing warnings. Request for unblock. --[[User:Messenger2010|Messenger2010]] 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |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=My warning were legitamte but you are entitled to your opinion. I was never told my warning were not legit. You should not block an editor just for issuing warnings. Request for unblock. --[[User:Messenger2010|Messenger2010]] 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |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=My warning were legitamte but you are entitled to your opinion. I was never told my warning were not legit. You should not block an editor just for issuing warnings. Request for unblock. --[[User:Messenger2010|Messenger2010]] 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}