User talk:Defenz 07

This user is neutral in --------.

You have been blocked indefinitely 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (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).

Defenz 07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only tried to add references and made the article Eliseo Soriano neutral, NOT NEGATIVE no positive. Shannon Rose was already been warned by another administrator, see this message to her talk page. I want the article to be fair not biased not having too much negative propaganda nor positive propaganda. She doesn't believe in the references published by Eliseo Soriano, but why is this (adding selfpublished references) fine in other articles. Please, I want justice.

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the reason for your block - abusive sockpuppetry. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:41, 3 November 2008 (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).

Defenz 07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I thought alternate accounts was legal. I only tried to add references and made the article Eliseo Soriano neutral, NOT NEGATIVE no positive. I want the article to be fair not biased not having too much negative propaganda nor positive propaganda. She doesn't believe in the references published by Eliseo Soriano, but why is this (adding selfpublished references) fine in other articles? I didn't know the rules back then; but I finally understand the rule. I won't make any mistakes again and I promise that I will do construcive edits once I am unblocked. They think it's sockpuppetry but I am only an alternate account of Dar book. Sorry for the abuse which I didn't know that it was bad. Please, I want another chance.

Decline reason:

Agree with block and above admin review, should request unblock not of this account but of the sockpuppeteer identified at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dar book. — Cirt (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2008 (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.