Jump to content

User talk:Sportman2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sportman2 (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 27 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks for joining Wikipedia, Sportman2

Hi, I'm Xiong_Chiamiov, another user at Wikipedia. If you ever need some help, please drop a message on my talk page (User_talk:Xiong_Chiamiov). If you're wondering how to edit a page, going to Wikipedia:How to edit a page may be useful. Below are some tips which many come in handy sometime:

  • When writing a comment or sending a message, adding ~~~~ on the end will add your signature, as well as the current time and date. Your signature can be changed by going to Special:Preferences, or by clicking "my preferences" in the top right.
  • If you want to test that you can really edit pages, you may wish to go to Wikipedia:Sandbox, and you can add whatever you want! However, please do not make edits to Wikipedia articles with the intention of ruining them, as such edits are considered to be Vandalism.

Remember, if you need help, there are loads of places you can get it:

Thanks again for coming to Wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. And remember, Be bold in updating pages! -- Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your splitting of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

I see you are in the middle of splitting the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article into separate Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen articles.

They have been a single article all this time because they are notable as a duo. Sometimes there may be a reason to create individual articles for members of a group, but they should be notable as individuals before it makes sense to do so, and the article for the group as a whole should remain regardless.

For example, we have an article for The Beatles as well as separate articles for John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. This is because they have all embarked on solo projects as well as being the members of the group. On the other hand, it would make no sense to maintain all the information about the Beatles as a group separately on four pages. On the other hand, I'm not aware that MK&A have done much separately from each other that's notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, and so unless there's something I don't know about, they shouldn't have separate articles. Even if they had, the individual articles should be about what makes them notable as individuals, rather than being personalised editions of the article about the group.

Unless you can convince me otherwise or somebody else gets there first, I will revert your changes. -- Smjg 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Bearcat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bearcat.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Carlisle‎

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Downwards 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

You can help other Wikipedia contributors by using the Preview button instead of the Save button when you are making many changes to an article, such as your edits to Paul Brown Stadium. When you are finished and you are satisfied with all of your changes, then use the Save button. This will help future editors in reviewing the edit history when necessary, because making many changes and saving each one clutters up the edit history of an article and makes it difficult for editors to review the history. Thank you. ●DanMS 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Cornhole Association

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as The American Cornhole Association) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Jhinman 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You actually created an article "The American Cornhole Association" as indicated by deletion logs. I have looked at the website for the organization, and I sse that the Cornhole(game) article has refrences from three newspaper articles. If you can provide a reference specifically for the "American Cornhole Association" and not just the game itself, then it would be more difficult for editors to remove the article. A possible reference could be a newspaper, magazine, or journal article from a publisher other than the organization itself. This would verify the notability of the organization and hence, hopefully, that it is not nonsense. You can also discuss the article before creating it on the Wikipedia Drawing Board. --cgilbert 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, possibly consider renaming the article "American Cornhole Association" rather than "The American Cornhole Association". --cgilbert 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:ACA.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ACA.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:ACA2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ACA2.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Amlogo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amlogo.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New contributors' help page

I moved your message to the bottom of the page so that it will be easier for other editors to notice it - PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome!

Hello, Sportman2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bearcat.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bearcat.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:SullivanArena.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:SullivanArena.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ACA2.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:ACA2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The situation seems fine for now, if they vandalize again, use {{test4}}, and if they do it again (within a few hours) report them to WP:AIV. The reason the link takes you to the edit page is because the page hasn't been created yet (similar to yours). You can use {{ipuser|24.145.235.244}}, which displays 24.145.235.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think I answered all of your questions, let me know if you have more. John Reaves (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.145.235.244
User talk:24.145.235.244
Special:Contribution/24.145.235.244
These are the correct formats for each of the links you tried, hopefully this will help you. John Reaves (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Cheeseconey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cheeseconey.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Cincinnati, Ohio

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cincinnati, Ohio. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Cincinnati, Ohio. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The race riots is a notable event and isn't breaching WP:NPOV. In fact, removing it from the historical aspect (which was debated a while back) would be considered not presenting all sides of the story. It is also an article directly relating to Cincinnati as a city, therefore it should remain hyperlinked from the main page. Unexplained content removals, especially ones with such assertions that the user can claim rights over editing, is considered vandalism and was appropriately dealt with. As such, there is no ownership of articles. IF you want to debate this further, you can set up a request for comments, but I consider this case closed and will continue to deal out vandalism warnings before going to WP:ANI.

UC and DAAP

Hi there! I understand that DAAP is a highly-selective school, and I'm fine mentioning that or any other accolades it rightly deserves. However, I am not fine with what the anonymous user had put in (that it was THE most selective of UC's programs), especially as it had no references for the claim. Although you changed the wording a bit (the wording on the DAAP page itself was not changed, so I removed it as well there), it still strikes as unwarranted elitism. A simple look at the admission standards for the DAAP architecture program reveal that they are in fact lower than the Connections dual admissions medical program which only admits at most 12 students a year compared to the 60 or so architecture students according to UC's own institutional research Wangry 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to user:Seicer

Now, if you bothered to read over the prior histories, you would have learned that I cite all sources using the MLA-Harvard format, using the footnotes system. Per WP:CITE and WP:CITET, there is no set standard, and that consensus must be reached before a changeover in reference system is established. I didn't say citations were a wasted space; I stated that using the citation style he was using was wasting space, because it adds a considerable amount of text to a relatively short article, thereby increasing file sizes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Sorry if I sounded obtuse, I've grown tired of users who just bicker over the most minor issues. It's the content that counts, right? Anyhow, I think a rough consensus (for now) was reached on the race relations issue for Cincinnati - a unreferenced tag. I applied it to the parent article a while back but no one has went in a corrected it, but there are some serious issues with it. Besides a lack of sources (or appropriated sources), it is not from a neutral-point-of-view. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Citing sources since it is appearant that user:Stevietheman will be resorting to editing to prove a point per comment left at Talk:Louisville Museum Plaza. You are more than welcome to comment! Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Ohio Patriots

Actually, I was in error in placing the speedy delete tag on that article. I saw from here that the article had been deleted before, but it seems that it was blank at the time and this does not constitute a re-posting of the same material. I've removed the speedy delete tag. However, I'm still unconvinced of the notability of this subject. Is it the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other?" If you could provide reliable sources indicating its notability, that would certainly strengthen the article and ensure its survival. -Elmer Clark 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Photos

Sadly, the copyright rules aren't very forgiving. The reason most photo uploads are the work of the uploader is because they are usually the only person who can fully release the rights to the photo. Putting a photo up on Wikipedia requires VERY liberal licensing. You say that you do have permission to use the photo. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia demands a bit more than that. The creator has to release the image under a Creative Commons or other open license. I'm, personally, not too familiar with it. You might Start Here or ask around at Wikipedia Help Desk. Sorry! --Mdwyer 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

I'm sorry, I haven't the slightest idea how to work with bots. Have you tried to contact the user who created the bot? There should be contact information on the bot's userpage. 23skidoo 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Bots

Hi! I just wanted to warn you that MetsBot has been messing with pages. The bot most recently screwed up my user page by playing with my user boxes. The bot can be turned off, but, only by administrators or the person who created the bot. That is why I am turning to you. Please Help!--Sportman2 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the bot is doing it's job :-) The templates are being moved out of the Template: namespace into the userspace per the Userbox migration, and the bot was just fixing your user page to reflect the change. —METS501 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in the bot's contributions that he (or she ?) moved many templates to other templates. First off, why did they need to be moved? Second, did the moves work because when I tried the new templates I was told thy weren't existent. However, the old templates worked. Please Help!--Sportman2 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just userfying userboxes. There were HUGE problems in the past with userboxes, and it is an absolute necessity that userboxes be userfied. —METS501 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, the new user boxes do not work!!!--Sportman2 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example of a userbox that doesn't work? They should all work. —METS501 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now they do. But, before they didn't.--Sportman2 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help!--Sportman2 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) —METS501 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Super14.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Super14.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Muchness 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following image you uploaded also has no copyright tag: Image:Cheeseconey.jpg --Muchness 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Bengalstadium.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bengalstadium.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Bengalstadium.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bengalstadium.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Muchness 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Skyline

Hi, thanks for your interest in the article about Skylines. Unfortunately, you have reverted to a completely unsourced and blatanly POV version of the page - I didn't delete all that stuff to be vindictive, but rather because the page is in flagrant disregard of numerous wikipedia policies, including use of reliable sources, avoidance of indiscriminate lists and weasel words, and so on. If you'd like to discuss these changes in greater detail please do so on the talk page, where I laid out my reasoning. For now, I am going to revert back to the shorter article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Q clearance

Please do not remove information from articles without an acceptable reason. Image:Q-clearance badge.jpg is properly licenced, and is perfectly acceptable to use in this article, as far as I know. If you know of a valid reason to remove it, please bring it up on the article's talk page. Prodego talk 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're pretending to be ridiculous or if it is genuine, but just having a Q clearance card will not get you access to anything. Security is a little tighter than that around the labs. A "terrorist" could not just waltz into Los Alamos with a fake badge they printed off from a blurry copy on Wikipedia. And in any case a Q clearance does not give you access to weapons themselves, it means you are authorized look at certain types of classified information on a need-to-know basis. --Fastfission 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: your comments on my talk page...

I know what's going on with this article - I'm the person who identified the anonymous IP address editors as being at the DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration. I'm also the person who kicked it up to the wikien-l list for wider discussion.

I also have a really good idea of what the various DOE clearances are all about.

I have a keen appreciation for keeping nuclear-related secrets, where it's really secret. But random, widespread secrecy is actively harmful. Keeping something that the head of the NNSA paraded in front of press cameras over and over and over again secret is a lost cause, and doesn't help the DOE, NNSA, National Security, or society as a whole.

If there is a real security issue here, the DoE or NNSA can contact the Foundation via Brad Patrick, and deal with it. Georgewilliamherbert 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Sorry if I didn't understand that you were on the same page now.
Happy editing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bearcat.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bearcat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJBot has only tagged this image once and it was because it was unused at the current time. BJTalk 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJBot is not orphan bot... BJTalk 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJBot tags images that are fair use and are orphaned. It does nothing relating to not having a copyright tag. BJTalk 18:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Junglekatfan.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Junglekatfan.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US largest cities template

I see that you reverted my template removal. If you look at the template, The city is NOT on the list. --Moreau36 16:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Sportman2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't do anything to deserve being blocked for life. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. If I have ever done anything that is against policy I have never done it knowingly. Also, I have never been warned about what I am being blocked for. I stand against vandalism and have made tons of constructive edits. I have never vandalized nor will I ever. Please reconsider this block.

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=I didn't do anything to deserve being blocked for life. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. If I have ever done anything that is against policy I have never done it knowingly. Also, I have never been warned about what I am being blocked for. I stand against vandalism and have made tons of constructive edits. I have never vandalized nor will I ever. Please reconsider this block. |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=I didn't do anything to deserve being blocked for life. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. If I have ever done anything that is against policy I have never done it knowingly. Also, I have never been warned about what I am being blocked for. I stand against vandalism and have made tons of constructive edits. I have never vandalized nor will I ever. Please reconsider this block. |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=I didn't do anything to deserve being blocked for life. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. If I have ever done anything that is against policy I have never done it knowingly. Also, I have never been warned about what I am being blocked for. I stand against vandalism and have made tons of constructive edits. I have never vandalized nor will I ever. Please reconsider this block. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportman2&oldid=126502036"