User talk:Cwiker

Please log in to your Cwiker account and make the request from there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 29 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand how someone forgetting their password and creating a second account is grounds for blocking? I understand if I had logged into Cwiker and then into the other account, that would be a clear indication of using multiple accounts. However, that NEVER happened. I have not logged into the other account since I created Cwiker because I forgot the password to it. I know the password to Cwiker and only intended to use it from here on out. So what is the problem here? Please remove my block so I may use my account. If I am being blocked for some other reason, please tell me what that is?

Decline reason:

That you used this account and the other ones to spam. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

That is false. I never advertised a single Web URL or phone number using this account. Regarding the other account (Micky90), I only listed what I believed to be a valid URL, and when it was removed, I never added it back (realizing it was incorrect). It was an honest mistake. Confirm my statements and please remove this block.

Decline reason:

Stop evading your block. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:11, 31 October 2009 (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.

Then explain this Talk:Wolfram_Alpha#wfalpha.com_.26_wolfa.com. Why were you advocating on behalf of an illegal mirror site? Triplestop x3 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not advocating any web url at Talk:Wolfram_Alpha#wfalpha.com_.26_wolfa.com. In fact, I never even typed either of those web urls in my responses. I made it a point not to talk about them anymore after I saw the url was incorrect roughly two weeks ago.

Pleasantville sent me a nasty and completley unnecessary message, so it was my pleasure to correct her poorly investigated statements. I don't see how this is grounds for me being blocked though, since I did not do it in a rude manner? I stated facts, nothing else. Cwiker (talk)

And if I was a spammer, I would have just used a different IP and created a new account by now and not cared about this account. The fact that I want my account reenabled shows that I am not a spammer (that would be illogical). Can someone stop accusing me of this crap and unblock me?

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see my response directly above this. It is obvious I'm not a spammer

Decline reason:

Single purpose account advocating for suspicious mirror site; see also WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 1 November 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

That is not accurate. I have made hundreds of tiny contributions to Wikipedia here and there, but I have never created an account before. I recently moved, so you can't see those contribution under this IP. Once again, why would I care about this account if I was a spammer? Clearly my goal is not to spam. Lastly, I was correcting Pleasantville to make her feel dumb since she sent me a nasty message. I could have just as easily done it on another page she edited, but that was the only page I saw her say something incorrect.

Decline reason:

"I was correcting Pleasantville to make her feel dumb" -- we don't need that sort of behavior on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:03, 2 November 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not do it in a wrongful manner. I simply corrected her invalid statements. Are you telling me Wikipedia needs people to not correct people when they conduct incorrect research? Sure, my intentions were wrong, but what I did (and the manner I did it) was perfectly acceptable. I agree it was wrong, I won't do it anymore. Now can you unblock my account. It seems stupid for me to have to keep using my IP to make edits on Wikipedia. I much rather use my account so I can keep track of everything even when my IP changes. This ban is serving no purpose other than making all my edits come from my IP or another account I could create. I don't want to create another account, I like my username on this one.

Decline reason:

Per comment below and admission of block evasion in request. I am protecting this page so admins can spend their time more productively reviewing requests of people who understand what they were blocked for. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2009 (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 intentions were wrong, but what I did was perfectly acceptable"? So you admit you were acting in bad faith? How can we be convinced that you will not repeat this malicious behavior? Triplestop x3 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]