User talk:EverybodyHatesChris

Welcome!

Hello, EverybodyHatesChris, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Isotope23 ^talk 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think I really NEED to come back to wikipedia because I have made all the edits I felt needed to be made, and was merely going around trying to help out on other television articles because I was bored. However, I would like to note that the indefinite block given here was pretty outrageous by Jpgordon. Number one, It came without a warning. his reason for blocking me was Abusing Multiple sockpuppetts here which isn't true as I have NOT been sockpuppeting [2]. In fact, someone told him that the sockpuppets weren't even abusive like he CLAIMED they were and that he shouldn't have made such a remark (which is one blatant mistake).And might I add the reason for his block was ABUSING MULTIPLE SOCKPUPPETS. Anyway, as I said, I have made many of the contributions I've wanted to make here at wikipedia so I don't mind being blocked. I always try to tell my self not to edit here because something like this will happen. :)

Decline reason:

Editor has not requested unblocking. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I contacted jpgordon since this block was made after a Checkuser investigation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

As I said, I dont mind being blocked, but obviously I think the block should be taken away because the reason that the administrator gave for the block was utterly wrong. He was even told: I had a quick glance through the accounts contribs above. I see no abuse at all from them. It's not an offence to create multiple accounts. A checkuser ought to know what constitutes abuse, and what doesn't. This doesn't. Of course, if there are other accounts which were disruptive and blocked, then that's good, but I'm pointing out these accounts are not abusive, and shouldn't be labelled as such. Majorly (talk) / There were no abusive sockpuppets and he has also put this on my frontpage, thusly I think the block should be taken away. In no way does this mean I am going to contribute a great deal any longer. I may make a small edit here and there, but that's it from now on

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=As I said, I dont mind being blocked, but obviously I think the block should be taken away because the reason that the administrator gave for the block was utterly wrong. He was even told: I had a quick glance through the accounts contribs above. I see no abuse at all from them. It's not an offence to create multiple accounts. A checkuser ought to know what constitutes abuse, and what doesn't. This doesn't. Of course, if there are other accounts which were disruptive and blocked, then that's good, but I'm pointing out these accounts are not abusive, and shouldn't be labelled as such. Majorly (talk) / There were no abusive sockpuppets and he has also put this on my frontpage, thusly I think the block should be taken away. In no way does this mean I am going to contribute a great deal any longer. I may make a small edit here and there, but that's it from now on |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=As I said, I dont mind being blocked, but obviously I think the block should be taken away because the reason that the administrator gave for the block was utterly wrong. He was even told: I had a quick glance through the accounts contribs above. I see no abuse at all from them. It's not an offence to create multiple accounts. A checkuser ought to know what constitutes abuse, and what doesn't. This doesn't. Of course, if there are other accounts which were disruptive and blocked, then that's good, but I'm pointing out these accounts are not abusive, and shouldn't be labelled as such. Majorly (talk) / There were no abusive sockpuppets and he has also put this on my frontpage, thusly I think the block should be taken away. In no way does this mean I am going to contribute a great deal any longer. I may make a small edit here and there, but that's it from now on |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=As I said, I dont mind being blocked, but obviously I think the block should be taken away because the reason that the administrator gave for the block was utterly wrong. He was even told: I had a quick glance through the accounts contribs above. I see no abuse at all from them. It's not an offence to create multiple accounts. A checkuser ought to know what constitutes abuse, and what doesn't. This doesn't. Of course, if there are other accounts which were disruptive and blocked, then that's good, but I'm pointing out these accounts are not abusive, and shouldn't be labelled as such. Majorly (talk) / There were no abusive sockpuppets and he has also put this on my frontpage, thusly I think the block should be taken away. In no way does this mean I am going to contribute a great deal any longer. I may make a small edit here and there, but that's it from now on |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}