User talk:Ravenmount

February 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Shrunken head has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Shrunken head constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Shrunken head. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:59, 10 February 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 I request that I am to be unblocked. I know that I did something that I should not have done. I will not change the pictures again. If unblocked, I will not do anything else to degrade wikipedia.}}

, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 10 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I request that I am to be unblocked. I know that I did something that I should not have done. I will not change the pictures again. If unblocked, I will not do anything else to degrade wikipedia. The only changes I would make would be to make wikipedia better.

Decline reason:

A change of heart in three hours? 狐 FOX 23:53, 10 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I feel that I should be unblocked. Before today's incident, I had not done anything that would be considered disruptive. Before, the only stuff that I edited was spelling errors and to add valuable information. If my block is removed, I will not post anything else that might be seen as unfavorable. I find that wikipedia is a valuable resource and will not harm it any more in any way. Ravenmount (talk) 7:02 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

You certainly showed no hesitation in swerving into disruptive editing. It's only been a few hours, and you clearly knew what you were doing. Abrupt repentance for equally abrupt disruption isn't terribly convincing, or reassuring. - Vianello (Talk) 04:14, 11 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia, I have sinned. I take fault in my actions. I fell into the temptations of my friends. Anyway, this is my fault. I have thought long of what I did and it was childish. I regret everything I did. If Wikipedia would give me another chance, I would be eternally grateful. I do feel horrible for what I have done. I have never done anything like this ever before and do not plan on doing this again. I now understand that Wikipedia means business when they say so. Anyway, I would like to offer my apologies to anyone who got offended. May the force be with you, Ravenmount (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your apologies are appreciated, but this isn't how things work. There's a reason we warn people before blocking them - to give them a chance to reconsider and understand that they're causing a harm. Given that you ignored every single warning until you were forcibly stopped, I will decline this unblock request. m.o.p 05:28, 11 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I again say that I am sorry for defacing Wikipedia. I wish that I will be granted to be unblocked. I know that this is an excuse, but someone else using my profile did this. In the earlier appeals, I said that I was at fault because that was the correct way to go through this process; and that is what Wikipedia wrote. I take offence that Wikipedia does not trust me. As to the last response I received, the administrator said that "I" ignored every single warning. I only see one warning that says I may be blocked. I had faith in Wikipedia before this incident. I even improved several wiki pages. I added appropriate photos also to a page. I feel that I was a victim. I was recently planning on donating to Wikipedia, but now due to the current circumstances, I will not. If by any chance I get unblocked, I may change my mind. Again, I was not the person who changed the pictures. Have a nice day, Ravenmount (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Now we have WP:BROTHER and WP:GOTHACKED. Now that we are unsure as to whether or not you are who you say you are, it will not be possible to unblock this account. Seeing as you already admit to have lied, it should come as no surprise that we cannot trust you. You might wish to see WP:EBUR. I will be removing access to this talkpage, but you can contact ArbCom if desired (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 11 February 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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]