User talk:Aebvtu

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).

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

Request reason:

Harrassment by User:Jauerback based on a guideline written by a vandal. The block is interfereing with my writing. I just spent two hours writing, the vandal User:Jauerback is keeping me from posting the paragraph. Aebvtu (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Three things:

The block is supposed to interfere with your editing; that's the entire point of it.
This does not address the stated reason for your block, which is sockpuppetry... based on a policy, which certainly was not written by a vandal.
Name-calling and other personal attacks will not help your case in the slightest.

In order to be unblocked, you will need to explain your actions in relation to the apparent sockpuppetry you have been engaging in. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (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.

Aebvtu is a

Confirmed sockpuppet of Shrpics1812 (talk · contribs). Please make any further unblock requests from that account. —DoRD (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I can't I don't know the password. I abandoned some accounts, so what? Wasn't intending anything wrong with it. I don't have access to it's password. The message boxes at the top of Son of God vs. Son of Man should not be put there. They look like graffiti was their original intent. If the article's accuracy is disputed that is not in the subject of the article and is soapboxing as well as graffiti. I think the readers can have their own opinion on that. The top of the page is not the place to ask people to look for secondary sources. Criticising primary sources is an opinion unrelated to the subject and it's message box does not belong in the article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Someone wanting to put messages boxes in the article saying deleting the article is wanted by someone is not the subject of the article and is obvious graffiti. There is nothing wrong that I know of with using the primary sources. That message box is graffiti, and not much more. All Wikipedia article I've read include many links to primary sources as references.

Decline reason:

You edited from Shrpics1812 only four days ago, on September 18. I refuse to believe that you can forget a password in four days. Abandoning an account may be acceptable in some circumstances, but using a succession of accounts within a few days to edit the same article is sockpuppetry. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:21, 22 September 2012 (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.