User talk:Unc 2002

Welcome!

Hello, Unc 2002, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use edit summaries to attack other editors. See WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial bias"?!?! I believe that phrase is an oxymoron. A controversy may be about whether or not something is biased, or in which direction. If such a controversy exists, then by that fact alone it is not a given whether or not there is any bias. If it were clear, there would be no controversy. So you see, there's no such thing. Kevin Baas^talk 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Fox News Channel. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - auburnpilot's sock 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsn9333 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (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).

Unc 2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got onto campus this morning after the weekend and saw I have been blocked... did not even have a chance to defend myself. I am not a socket puppet. At worst you could say I am a "meat puppet", since a friend of mine got me interested in wikipedia, but I'm not even a meat puppet in the true sense of the word. I have been involved with other articles (not just the one-sided Fox News entry my friend told me about). This is not fair! Am I seriously forbidden from editing articles forever!? What about articles other then Fox News that I have taken interest in? How is that fair, given the situation? To be honest I don't even see how it is fair to ban me from the Fox News entry forever... but much less all entries. Also, I apologize for the edit from this IP I just made to Fox News. I just logged on, assumed I was logged in, and didn't realize I wasn't until after I saved. Once I logged in I saw I was the subject of socket puppet accusations... so please don't assume that was a socket puppet attempt on my part.

Decline reason:

Since you claim to be a separate individual from Jsn9333, then the both of you should be able to email unblock-en-l from your respective University-issued @unc.edu email addresses so as to disprove the current and serious allegations of sock-puppetry. Emails to this address are only accessible by Wikipedia administrators so you will continue to remain anonymous to the general public. -- Netsnipe ► 18:05, 7 April 2008 (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.

Having been previously involved with the FNC issue, I will not decline or grant the unblock request, but I seriously believe this is a case of meatpuppetry over sockpuppetry. As such, if Unc 2002 agrees to stop participating in the FNC discussion and agrees not to edit the FNC page, I would support reducing the block to match the one given to Jsn9333 (talk · contribs). The IP used by Unc 2002 to edit the FNC page[1] appears to confirm the findings of the checkuser case (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsn9333). - auburnpilot talk 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]