User talk:ThomasKeins

September 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2009 detention of American hikers by Iran, you may be blocked from editing. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Carolyn B. Maloney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 12:41, 11 September 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).

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

Request reason:

block maybe, but not indefinite --ThomasKeins (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 13:30, 11 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will adhere to the following: * the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or * the block is no longer necessary because I 1. understand what I was blocked for, 2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and 3. will make useful contributions instead. --ThomasKeins (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What made you think this edit would be acceptable? When it was reverted, you repeated it. All your other edits consisted of categorising people as Jews. Read the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons and the one on WP:Neutral point of view. Now, if you were unblocked, what sort of edits would you plan to make? JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 11 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will adhere to the following: * the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or * the block is no longer necessary because I 1. understand what I was blocked for, 2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and 3. will make useful contributions instead. --ThomasKeins (talk) 10:14 am, Today (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

For some reason, I remain unconvinced. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:14, 11 September 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.

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

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

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

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (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. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]