User talk:PandP2go

April 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl and the Puppets, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Michig (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:20, 29 April 2011 (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).

PandP2go (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being unfairly accused of canvassing; in any message I left in the other users` talk pages I attempted to influence in their decision whether they should vote for "keep" or "delete". I am also being accused of not writting a message to user GiovBag, who was also involved in the discussion; the reason is very simple: we both very much disagreed in previous discussions (inArgentines of European descent, for example) so I dont want to contact the guy not even by written form, thats it. I consider that nobody can force me to contact a person who I dont want to see, not even in pictures. Furthermore, I think that if user Maunus -the denouncer- is so sure that his arguments are so overwhelmingly valid in the AfD on White Latin American, he should not be so afraid that I invite people to participate in the consult. One last point, if I unadvertedly and unwillingly commited canvassing, I consider that an undefinite block is an excessive punishment; it is like life sentence or so.PandP2go (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for canvassing, but for other disruption as explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PandP2go. Sandstein 18:17, 29 April 2011 (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.

Note: the above unblock request seemed utterly bizarre given that it seemed entirely unrelated to the user's edit history. A bit of digging into what they may have been talking about lead me to User:Pablozeta who is not only also blocked - they also used the exact same rationale to request their unblock. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2011 (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).

PandP2go (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been accused of some very strange behaviour which is actually against my religion. I would not have done this. It would have been against my God to do so. Firstly, the edits I supposedly made to Cambodian_parliamentary_election,_1972 where I supposedly denounced God! That is a ridiculous thing to accuse me of. For one thing, I have no interest in Cambodia! I have been, yes, but it was mainly to sample the local youth. I have had no involvement in the political system there, and to say that I have some kind of blasphemers stick to beat, well, it's just preposterous!! Secondly, I supposedly made edits to the article Joe Coleman (painter) pushing some kind of Cambodian atheistic political agenda! This is utter nonsense. As I explained before, I have no interest in Cambodian politics and anyway, I am a religious man! But the most ridiculous part is how my edit history has been compromised, completely removed and replaced with supposedly campaigning for an article of a Scottish musical combo group to be deleted! I have no interest in getting this done. And then my last request to be unblocked has been bastardised and turned into the unblock request of another user, again with absolutely no edit history visibile. To say this is a bizarre turn of events is an understatement! PandP2go (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nobody has claimed that you did anything whatsoever to the Cambodian election article or the one on Joe Coleman. Since this is the second time you have abused the unblocking process with your incoherent rambling, I'll remove your talk page access. Favonian (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2011 (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.

The above unblock rationale is again nonsense, unrelated to their contribution history. As PandP2go is clearly messing about, how about they also be prevented from editing this page too? RichardOSmith (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]