User talk:Mr. Account Swapper

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. Account Swapper, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Scientizzle 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crash series

Time to cool down...

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Crash series. 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. -- Scientizzle 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nitros Oxide. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.. Purgatory Fubar 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you two attempted to settle your disputes in another way? Have you tried Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other methods, too. -- Scientizzle 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

I've indefinitely blocked you because your username is against Wikipedia policy; see WP:U. Your username implies an intent to abuse Wikipedia. You have also engaged in very problematic editing since joining the project. While this indef block is not fully based on your editing pattern, I do think you need to take some time off, regardless of what username you use. If you want to contest this block, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to make the request. Mango juice^talk 18:53, 6 March 2007 (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).

Mr. Account Swapper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I signed up with this name because a user insisted I make an account. Since he had been referring to me by this name, for whatever reason, I used it as my Username to avoid confusion. I have certainly not abused Wikipedia, and have no intention of doing so.

Decline reason:

This is a username block at its best, and I've seen nothing but edit warring from your contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 7 March 2007 (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.

Anyone reviewing this: if you don't think this account's name and its reference to potential WP:SOCK issues is troubling, I ask that you still consider leaving this user under a 48 hour block for repeated WP:3RR violations. Mango juice^talk 22:58, 6 March 2007 (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).

Mr. Account Swapper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user in question has supplied a perfectly valid reason his username. The username policy appears to be with regard to deliberately picking a disruptive username, whereas the user in question has apparently chosen the username in order to be recognized by whoever that nicknamed him thus, which constitutes a legitimate reason for the username. This blocking is a violation of assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. I'd also like to reference Hanlon's Razor, although it's somewhat disparaging. Whereas edit warring might be considered grounds for a brief block, it is not grounds for an indefinite block and therefore does not justify the indefinite block. Quite frankly, I feel an unblock (The user has already been blocked for longer than the edit war block time.) is due, and an apology. Civility is important. If the username is nevertheless considered sufficiently worrisome, the appropriate response would be to request a username change, not an indefinite block, considering that there was no malicious intent. Personally, I find the username, given the circumstances, to be quite excusable. This unblock request has been contributed not by the user in question but by a bystander who has no connection to user in question, instead being drawn to the page by the edit war regarding the Crash Bandicoot template, which is somewhat funny, truth be told. Thank you. -Caudax 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You must be joking - this account was blocked nearly six months ago and there is no evidence this user is still interested in this account. This is not an appropriate use of the unblock template — Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:43, 25 August 2007 (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.

Hello,

Thank you for taking the liberty of responding to the template, and I hope you will respond to this post as well. Now, if you would please, I'd like to address the issues you raised in the template. I am not joking when I ask this. The points I raised were perfectly legitimate, and simply because the account has been banned then does not excuse continuing the ban into the future. Beyond that, this template was the best way I discerned to make the unblock request. I understand it might not be to your taste, and if there is a better way to make such a request, by all means inform me so that I may refrain from doing so in the future.

Thank you,

Caudax 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I overwrote your reviewed block template in order to preserve all markup that was lost in the transition, but I left all information intact. I hope you don't mind.