User talk:Jacksteinbrecher

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Joyous! | Talk 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksteinbrecher[edit]

Please do not attempt to add biographical articles about people who, at least at present, are not notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 October 2006[edit]

You've been warned before about adding irrelevant, unsourced information about non-notable people to Wikipedia. If the only purpose of this account is to include such information it may be blocked. Thanks. Deizio talk 23:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Sonic[edit]

A tag has been placed on Church of Sonic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Church of Sonic is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}, and also put a note on Talk:Church of Sonic saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad taste[edit]

This is not acceptable conduct. Note also that I have opened a sockpuppetry case against this account, Sonic religion (talk · contribs) and Joey Andrews (talk · contribs). Pascal.Tesson 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note IP watch 141.158.53.73 which was sandwiched by this users edits on Peirce Middle School. TonyTheTiger 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

71.230.137.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Vandalism-only account and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Joey Andrews

Blocking administrator: AnonEMouse (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me please[edit]

I am just adding my two cents here. Points in favor of request

He self reverted his own foolery.
He moved his foolery to sandbox after warning. (negated by resumption of foolery in my eyes)
WP:AGF (assumed in warnings of 01:47, 13 September 2006, 23:23, 14 September 2006, 23:13, 6 October 2006, & 21:32, 14 November 2006) Seems to be a bad assumption.

Points against request

Continuing foolery in following [months]
Sockpuppetry especially sameday editing on October 13 from 71.230.137.30 on October 6 from 141.158.53.73 and November 14 from User:Sonic religion.
September, October, November talk page warnings.

I don't know which way this will go. I am watching. It is curious situation for me, a CAT:RFU newbie. TonyTheTiger 20:27, 30 January 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).

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

Request reason:

i'd like to be unblocked because i was just playin around. now i'm serious i'd like to contribute to wikipedia. i'm sure everyone's had their brush with vandalism on wikipedia, but now i'm done and i really, really would like to go back to contributing.

Decline reason:

You are a vandalism-only account. Trust me, if you want to seriously contribute, you do not want to be unblocked. Rather, create a new account and just behave. If you do not, you may be immediately re-blocked. -- Sandstein 22:01, 30 January 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.