User talk:A5051790463174

This is User talk:A5051790463174's talk page. If you have a question or comment, look no further!

A5051790463174's newsblog[edit]

I would like to state that my edits to Garry Glitter & 50 Cent were not vandalism however I do apoligize to anyone who may believe that they were. A5051790463174 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St Patricks day everybody! Have a shamrock shake. Spread the wikilove! A5051790463174 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reponce to indefblock by User Kuru:A my alternative account is a suspected sockpuppet. B this has not even made Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so there is no valid reason to block my account. A5051790463174 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Gamespot profile[1]

This account is a alternative account to User:A306200130048123.

March 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Hazel Blears. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Chelseadavis27[edit]

A tag has been placed on User talk:Chelseadavis27, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nymf _hideliho! 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning that you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nymf _hideliho! 19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for vandalism to Gary Glitter and 50 Cent. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhull andemu 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed lyrics to "I don't feel like dancing" as here they are a blatant copyright violation. Please don't replace them. Rodhull andemu 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to EastEnders, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

You are currently blocked under another account; please request to have that account unblocked first. You may not evade your block by continuing to create sockpuppet accounts. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2010 (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).

A5051790463174 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel there is no case to block me and also my alternative account is a suspected sockpuppet not a confirmed sockpuppet on top of all of this, I act in good faith.

Decline reason:

You're requesting unblocking by admitting to block evasion? Seriously? Even if your other account is a "suspected" sockpuppet, that can still be a valid reason for a block, and certainly does not excuse you creating confirmed sockpuppets of yourself to get around the block. Go appeal from your main account, further appeals from this account will not be entertained. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:57, 21 March 2010 (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.

My only statement is I am not a sockpuppet and this is my main account. A5051790463174 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a unrelated note sandbox edits are unrelated to wikipeida edits, wikipeida edits are contructive, sandbox edits are meant to be a way to get your non-contructive thoughts out of your system. A5051790463174 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]