User talk:User235

Speedy deletion of Image:Midget.jpg

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Image:Midget.jpg, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Midget.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid, you will be blocked from editing. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Daniel Case ([[User talk:Daniel

Case|talk]]) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (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).

User235 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Falsely accused as sock of waterboy or something, I admit to vandalising but did not continue after first warning. I know there is no sock evidence because I am not a sock of any user

Decline reason:

You just happened to run across APK's talk page, and randomly decided to post some midget porn? That's either malicious or unbelievably stupid. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:50, 20 March 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.

User refers to a vandalization edit made by one of his socks here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I see something someone else did that means I am that person? I merely saw all the swearing and personal attacks on your page that you wer making on others and I thought it would be funny to put midget porn on your page since you kept talking about it. I vandalised one time and I have since looked over policy regarding this. I did not continue only after just one warning, an indefinite block is a little harsh I think. In fact it says IP's are almost never blocked indefinitely. This is ridiculous and unfair.

You are not an IP. How did you just "happen" to come across my talk page then considering your first edits were to vandalize my talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly think I am someone else, so it is pointless for me to say anything to you. User235 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. How did you just happen to come across my talk page. You uploaded that porn picture (that has now been speedily deleted) and added it to my page. I find it hard to believe you're not just another SOCK of the person. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I may not be an IP, but when I try and edit it states my IP and said it was blocked indefinitely. User235 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 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).

User235 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

will another admin please look at this? I am being falsely accused as a sock. I vandalised one time and ceased to do so after one warning.

Decline reason:

Your actions are certainly consistent with being a sockpuppet and you have given us no reason to believe otherwise. At best, you deliberately attacked someone. — Yamla (talk) 03:14, 20 March 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.

Regardless of whether you are a sockpuppet or not, your VERY first action was to harrass another user. You don't get warnings for this eggregious abuse, plus the nature of the harassment shows that you clearly are familiar with Wikipedia, and have been here for some time. Based on that alone, you are likely someone who has been here a while, is using the account to hide such edits from your main account, or some other unsavory uses. Regardless, you don't get the right to continue this abuse. Common decency says that you don't show up somewhere and do what you did to APK's page on your first edit, and there was nothing innocent about that worth warning. You deserved what you got. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

You guys are scaring me, I said I did it because I thought he would like it because that is true. Then I thought you guys wanted me to say I did it to be mean so i did. I dont no how i came across his page i think it may have been from the word preacher, my daddys a preacher. I'm really scared, how serious is this? Like am I in trouble with the police? Please don't be mad at me I hate when ppl are mad at me. This was a good thing really, i've been told my whole life im not smart enough or good enough so I guess i'm not, the 1 person was right it was stupid and i'm stupid. please just tell me if the police are after me or not? User235 (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit A of WP:PN. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:26, 20 March 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).

User235 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

will someone please tell me if im in trouble with the police please

Decline reason:

Please.... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 20 March 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.