User talk:Caesar34

And another one User:Caesar34 :( Tancred 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this all you ever do on wiki Dibo, LOL. To read you I am the antichrist as well.

[1], Dibo, it was nice to look through your contributions and find this, lol, you are really starting to develop a complex. I suppose I am the source of all things rugby league football is not soccer to you, haha. Do you understand the concept of pelican droppings? That if you leave a trace here, it will be found by another and another and than snowball? Like the recent commentary over Alan Oakley using comments from http://www.stoush.net?? I do not believe that evidence by the way because I remember it being changed in November of last year. Anyways, good luck with the sockpuppet case. Another strike for righteous indignation in this overly rude world. --Caesar34 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your [here] is a dead giveaway - misspelling 'common' as 'commen' is a dead giveaway. see [first sockpuppet page about you]:

"stereotypical misspellings, like 'commen' and common style of edits and comments on talk pages"

so... there it is again. Dibo ^{T | C} 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh.. yeah okay Dibo??? Wtf r u talking about? --Caesar34 11:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. I never said I was not Ehinger222, I just said that I was not 147.10 which I am not. I thought I already had made it pretty much assumed im my message that I had had previous contact with you so your revelation is not really a revelation. But I think I was right all those times ago when I said that you and Tancred are a team/sockpuppets. --Caesar34 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dibo and tancred

go on, ask for a checkuser. i dare you. you won't because you know we're not the same person (divergent interests, in particular supporting different football teams, make it pretty obvious to all but the dimmest). quit starting up yet more sockpuppets, go back to editing as ehinger222 and start behaving like an adult, not a naughty kid desperately avoiding being grounded. Dibo ^{T | C} 11:56, 4 December 2006 (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).

Caesar34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

have clearly stated that I am not user: 147.10. User: Chuq has blocked me on the basis that I am bypassing a block, which I am not, because I am not blocked. Would like some resolution here if possible. TAgain, the user that Chuq blocked is not me, I just happen to agree with SOME not all of those edits and believe that the edits done by user: Tancred to the rugby league template for nations playing rugby league amounted to obvious vandalism. --Caesar34 12:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Regardless of which user you are a sockpuppet of, you and several obvious sockpuppets of yours have insisted on repeating the same edits of blocked users. (see User:Tancred/Archive1 history) -- Renesis (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2006 (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.

You have been blocked

Blocked due to sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ehinger222. Luna Santin 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]