User talk:Atheistinmichigan

August 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Muhammad's wives, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:34, 2 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

not a sock puppet. A friend of mine messaged me stating a true statement was being censored by Oshwah. I tried to contact Oshwah but the automatic filter did not recognize it as a standard message so I just made the change for him and asked that it not be reverted. Once again, this is not a sock puppet account, I do not care if Oshwah was offended by my friends comment or mine, it is not fair to be blocked because you don't like something. I have started to make other positive and necessary changes on Wiki and hope to continue. Yamla (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is an outright admission of WP:MEAT, so you have actually confirmed that you are indeed an abusive sockpuppet account. Yamla (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2016 (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.

I had no idea such a thing was even, well such a thing! I've tried to talk to Rob before you came in and decided to block me completely. I explained to him what happened, please let him make this decision.

Atheistinmichigan (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MTPPT. Regardless of your political or religious views, it's not appropriate to change religious articles in the disruptive way that you did. If you were unblocked, would you make the same changes again? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:44, 2 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

No. Although I do not feel it was disruptive, I will also follow the guidelines and regulations, which I agreed to when creating a profile. I will, however, continue to make small changes (on standard pages, not religious or political) if I notice a mistake. I will watch over the religious pages and notify ADMINS for things that are not correct BEFORE making said changes. Yamla; I had no idea such a thing was even, well such a thing! I've tried to talk to Rob before you came in and decided to block me completely. I explained to him what happened, please let him make this decision. Atheistinmichigan (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2016 (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.

As the blocking administrator, I don't object to the user being unblocked or having their block reduced if they acknowledge that this is their only chance and that anything which looks like sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry will lead to an indefinite block which won't be lifted. (This isn't necessarily support for an unblock, just nothing that I won't stand in the way.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]