User talk:Hanford West

May 2010

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 The Blind Side (film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

What’s wrong with my edit to The Blind Side(film)? How ‘s it unconstructive? When I watched the film, the beginning showed Michael & the investigator talking to each other. Next, it showed the flashback. It was important info. When I edited The Blind Side(film), I added that important info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanford West (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WP:OR
Bad written -> Michael Oher(Quinton Aaron) / & / investigator's
irrelevant. Plot is a general revision of the film.

These are some reasons Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! Don't you think that was important info? Since I feel it's important, I feel it should be in the article. If you feel it's not important info, then how come? Also, if you feel that info shouldn't be in the article, then how come? When I edited, the total amount of words was less than 1000 & none of it was bad language & it wasn't slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanford West (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add it, discuss it on the talkpage, second I said bad grammar not bad language -> and not & / Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron) not Michael Oher(Quinton Aaron) / investigator is not investigator's. I said it's irrelevant because you write: "Michael Oher(Quinton Aaron) & an investigator are talking to each other. The investigator's a woman. Michael asks if he could go now. The woman says no" But:

What they were discussing?
Why the investigator said no?

Like I said, discuss it on the talkpage, read WP:MoS and try to make this fit within the whole idea. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Tbhotch

When I wrote investigator's a woman, how's it irrelevant? Isn't it necessary for reader to know the gender of the investigator? The woman said no because she wanted to talk to Michael still. (Hanford West (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Please discuss at talkpage

Hi there, just letting you know that I've started a section over at The Blind Side's talkpage for you to discuss your ideas about the article's plot. Thanks, WordyGirl90 18:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Shirik

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).

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

Request reason:

Oh my gosh. Why did you block me? I know that I've to use the sandbox before I edit, but it's really hard for me to figure out how to use the sandbox. Please unblock me!

Decline reason:

You were blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Timmy Polo. You are not allowed to create a new account to evade this block. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:40, 6 May 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.

Message for Shirik

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).

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

Request reason:

What do you mean sockpuppet of User Timmy Polo. Does sockpuppet mean that I'm same person who created Timmy Polo. I never met person named Timmy Polo. I'm not same person who created Timmy Polo. I didn't know there was user Timmy Polo until now. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

We aren't finished yet? You can do this as many times as you like before you get bored, but it will always end the same way. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:56, 6 May 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.

Message for FisherQueen

Do you think that I'm same person who created Timmy Polo account?

Message for Shirik

Do you think that I'm the same person who created Timmy Polo account?(Hanford West (talk) 19:53, 6 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry for doing bad things which caused me to get blocked. I won't add too much info next time. I'll make sure it's 1000 words or less. Please unblock me!!!!!!!!!!

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of blocked user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:05, 6 May 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.

Message for jpgordon

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).

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

Request reason:

When you said "Checkuser verified sock of blocked user", what was your meaning? I'm not same person who created Timmy Polo account. Why did you deny my unblock request? I'm a different person. My name's Billy. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

Slot off, Timmy, you tried this stunt with your original account and got nowhere. Now I'm revoking your talk page access. All further appeals must be made by the Timmy Polo account to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:53, 8 May 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.