User talk:Unholyrollerz

October 2014

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry friend, but we have already reached a consensus about the article. with several other editors/ admins. The McGibney is properly sources to the news article written about him in Al Jazeera magazine. Or are you prepared to say the news website isn't saying what it says? Please take this up on the article's talk page so we can discuss it more. Unholyrollerz (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet and I was never given a chance to defend myself or comment. This is very unfair and would like to be heard please. Unholyrollerz (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at the talk page of User:Dead Goldfish it seems the editing pattern is very similar. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This dead Goldfish edited on other things besides the james mcGibney article. I have only edited on this article because this is the one that I am interested in. So because two people edit on the same article they must be the same? That doesn't seem like much evidence. Do you have IP records that show us to be the same? That to me would seem like proof. McGibney has been in the news recently because of him being in all these federal lawsuits. Is it unusual for people to come around an article for that reason? Why do you not focus on the quality of the edits that I made (or attempted to make) to this article instead? The information I wanted to add is legitimate information from a reputable source. Why haven't any of you looked at it and added it for yourself? Isn't quality information and article supposed to be important here? Look at my conduct. I have not been a problem editor and the quality of my edits seem in line with others. How do I prove a negative? How do I prove I am not something when the only evidence you have is, what? That I edited on an article that someone else, that several someone elses, have also edited on? come on! be fair man! my edit was a good edit.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - duplicate request. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This dead Goldfish edited on other things besides the james mcGibney article. I have only edited on this article because this is the one that I am interested in. So because two people edit on the same article they must be the same? That doesn't seem like much evidence. Do you have IP records that show us to be the same? That to me would seem like proof. McGibney has been in the news recently because of him being in all these federal lawsuits. Is it unusual for people to come around an article for that reason? Why do you not focus on the quality of the edits that I made (or attempted to make) to this article instead? The information I wanted to add is legitimate information from a reputable source. Why haven't any of you looked at it and added it for yourself? Isn't quality information and article supposed to be important here? Look at my conduct. I have not been a problem editor and the quality of my edits seem in line with others. How do I prove a negative? How do I prove I am not something when the only evidence you have is, what? That I edited on an article that someone else, that several someone elses, have also edited on? come on! be fair man! my edit was a good edit.

Decline reason:

The evidence suggests the same pattern between these two accounts, so I'm inclined to leave this blocked. only (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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.