User talk:Walrus cider: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 3 May 2009

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of I doubt it (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of I doubt it" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Hasland has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. decltype (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Chesterfield. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rodhull andemu 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Tupton. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Katieh5584 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2009 (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 North Wingfield. decltype (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 3 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Have you ever been to Waitrose? If you haven't, then I strongly recommend it.

Decline reason:

No reason given for an unblock. Rodhull andemu 16:21, 3 May 2009 (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.

Revision as of 16:25, 3 May 2009 edit Rodhullandemu (talk \| contribs) 115,150 edits m Reverted edits by Walrus cider (talk) to last version by Rodhullandemu ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:25, 3 May 2009 edit undo Momo san (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 18,043 edits sockpuppet tagging Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{sock\|I doubt it}}

	== May 2009 ==		== May 2009 ==