User talk:Bookishreader45

Welcome!

Hello, Bookishreader45, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Will (Talk - contribs) 06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely, as it's clear based on your contributions that you're Systemex. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:38, 29 January 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).

Bookishreader45 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Now I just don't understand this at all. Please help.

Decline reason:

You are accused of being Systemex and setting up this account to get around a block. -- Yamla 16:40, 29 January 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.

More info

This edit bears more than a passing resemblance to edits like this and this. User also displays too much familiarity with policies. And this isn't helping the cause. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it bad that I've done the donkey punch? And also, I've been here for a month. So is anyone that votes on the band articles to be deleted a "sockpuppet" now? Bookishreader45 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a first time CAT:RFU respondent so pardon any minor policy violations. However, as a newbie, I have an unbiased perspective of this whole process, so you may get a more equitable review than an admin who has "heard it all before."

I have valid contributions - A quick review at [1] shows this is not the case. In your month you have no notable contributions so your plea for the benefit of the doubt based on other contributions will fall on deaf ears.
I have been here for a month - Irrelevant. Especially given lack of productivity.
I swear I don't know anything about this "Systemex" thing. - True or not your own lack of respect for WP evidenced by your curious responses is probably enough to generate support for a block. I.E., even if you are a totally new user, you have not set about improving the encyclopedia, which is the expectation.
I am innocent - you have made more nonconstructive statements in your brief month as Bookish than is warranted. Look at this first edit. Further, you seem to be trolling.
I am only being targetted since I commented on that deletion article - The block reasons seem to be a.)suspected sockpuppet, b.)non-constructive edits. Ask yourself, do you think constructive wikipedians want others around who seek attention by writing in such an unprofessional manner. I actually gave thought to jesting in my response on the very AfD you were reprimanded for. I don't like being involved in a debate with a person who doesn't help others to understand his position. Your response could have been acceptable if you had said the version of the page that you voted on is crap because the x y and z claims are so baseless that they must be a joke. The woman has a www.imdb.com page that is referenced on the page. It is conceivable that because of its brevity you might have been confused about its veracity and validity. However, she is noted in the msnbc.com page that you should have seen as referenced. There is little reason to question whether a Veronica Finn exists meeting the description on the page version you saw. The only way to improve the encyclopedia on contestable issues is if everyone attempts to enlighten others on why changes should be made. Saying this page is crap does not help.

I apologize if the wrong conclusion has been reached regarding your editorship. However, I believe it was correct and it is certainly supportable. I support the original unblock denial. TonyTheTiger 22:56, 29 January 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).

Bookishreader45 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes but you can see that I have valid contributions and have been here for a month. I swear I don't know anything about this "Systemex" thing. I am innocent and only being targetted since I commented on that deletion article.

Decline reason:

Doesn't matter. Violation of WP:SOCK. —P ilotguy (radio check) 18:01, 1 February 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.

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).

Bookishreader45 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I swear I am not a sockpuppet. What is the evidence that I am please?

Decline reason:

reason -- Evidence is present above and appears conclusive. 〈RED VEЯS〉 20:58, 4 February 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.

Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing). Since you had some involvement with the Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SSTflyer 05:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]