User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus

Your GA nomination of Joe's Garage

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Joe's Garage you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a line and say that I appreciate the work you are doing on Joe's Garage. Your response to my concerns has been tremendous. Anyway, I won't be done with the review for a few more days due to time constraints, but thanks for hanging in there. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. --MuZemike 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have no idea what this is. I have never used any other account, and I abide by WP rules. I was just cleared from false charges of edit warring, and I get back to this? I am doing my best not to talk about other users here, but it is difficult, being that I am falsely accused of being a sock puppet of a user that was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia. I have made several thousand edits over the course of two years. It seems clear that this block is invalid and based solely on a personal grudge against me. Seriously, the reason I'm being falsely accused of being a sock puppet is because I edit alternative rock articles. Are you kidding? This block and sockpuppet accusation is a joke.

Decline reason:

Denial of sockpuppetry does not translate to an unblock. Alleging malfeasance or collusion does not address the issue that resulted in this block. Tiderolls 23:29, 22 April 2012 (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.

• I'm not seeing evidence of MuZemike's grudge. Can you show me the evidence? Tiderolls 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• What evidence is there that I'm a "sock puppet"? That I edit alternative rock articles. This is not a good reason for blocking me. There is no evidence of me being a sock puppet of any user. --WTF (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not gonna be a rhetorical back and forth. If you have no evidence, I suggest you remove your unblock request and restate your case. Otherwise, I, or another admin, will most likey decline the request as it does not address the issue of your block. Tiderolls 22:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser block

I have asked the blocking admin if this block is a checkuser block. If it is classed as such, then only a checkuser can alter your block. If you decide to post another unblock request you should steer clear of accusing others of wrongdoing as that, without supporting evidence, is almost a guaranteed decline. Tiderolls 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Update. Your block is not a checkuser block, so you can request review from any admin. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks and stick to the relevant issue(s) should you decide to request unblock. Tiderolls 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I would like a review of my block. The claim that this account is a ban evasion was asserted with the "evidence" that I edit articles on "alternative rock and its subgenres". I have tried to find out how to request a Checkuser to prove that I am not a sock of another editor, but I haven't found the instructions on how to do that. But my point still stands that the evidence for my blocking is thin, and also, I've already "done my time" with a 48 hour block. I don't need to be blocked for the actions of another user who was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia. I have looked at other unblock requests, and users accused of sock puppetry usually don't have that many edits. I've been around for two years and I have made over 1000 edits. Surely I can't be a sock puppet given this history. I should also point out that I generally don't have negative interaction with other users, and the argument that resulted in my 48 hour block was over formatting, not a genre change as claimed by the user who requested my blocking.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like a review of my block. The claim that this account is a ban evasion was asserted with the "evidence" that I edit articles on "alternative rock and its subgenres". I have tried to find out how to request a Checkuser to prove that I am not a sock of another editor, but I haven't found the instructions on how to do that. But my point still stands that the evidence for my blocking is thin, and also, I've already "done my time" with a 48 hour block. I don't need to be blocked for the actions of another user who was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia. I have looked at other unblock requests, and users accused of sock puppetry usually don't have that many edits. I've been around for two years and I have made over 1000 edits. Surely I can't be a sock puppet given this history. I should also point out that I generally don't have negative interaction with other users, and the argument that resulted in my 48 hour block was over formatting, not a genre change as claimed by the user who requested my blocking. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like a review of my block. The claim that this account is a ban evasion was asserted with the "evidence" that I edit articles on "alternative rock and its subgenres". I have tried to find out how to request a Checkuser to prove that I am not a sock of another editor, but I haven't found the instructions on how to do that. But my point still stands that the evidence for my blocking is thin, and also, I've already "done my time" with a 48 hour block. I don't need to be blocked for the actions of another user who was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia. I have looked at other unblock requests, and users accused of sock puppetry usually don't have that many edits. I've been around for two years and I have made over 1000 edits. Surely I can't be a sock puppet given this history. I should also point out that I generally don't have negative interaction with other users, and the argument that resulted in my 48 hour block was over formatting, not a genre change as claimed by the user who requested my blocking. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like a review of my block. The claim that this account is a ban evasion was asserted with the "evidence" that I edit articles on "alternative rock and its subgenres". I have tried to find out how to request a Checkuser to prove that I am not a sock of another editor, but I haven't found the instructions on how to do that. But my point still stands that the evidence for my blocking is thin, and also, I've already "done my time" with a 48 hour block. I don't need to be blocked for the actions of another user who was banned before I had even heard of Wikipedia. I have looked at other unblock requests, and users accused of sock puppetry usually don't have that many edits. I've been around for two years and I have made over 1000 edits. Surely I can't be a sock puppet given this history. I should also point out that I generally don't have negative interaction with other users, and the argument that resulted in my 48 hour block was over formatting, not a genre change as claimed by the user who requested my blocking. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited The Mighty Death Pop!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daredevil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)