User talk:Catcreekcitycouncil

An invitation to the Teahouse!

Hello! Catcreekcitycouncil, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Do not create, add, or restore hoaxes to Wikipedia. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lioness cat creek.JPG

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as File:Lioness cat creek.JPG, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of multiple accounts per the duck test, and username against policy (represnting an entity or group). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly advice

Even though you're now blocked, that doesn't meant that you cannot get a second chance (also per WP:Standard offer) and start to contribute constructively to the project, thereby lifting your existing block which will be reviewed by a panel of Administrators. But if you continue with your current nonsense, you will exhaust all our patience dealing with you very soon, following which you will be BANNED INDEFINITELY. Meaning by then, we will revert all your edits on sight no matter how constructive they are, per our policy of Revert, block, ignore, no questions ask. Make or break, it is your choice now so consider this wisely. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe 1992 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 08:18, 16 April 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Nothing that the City Council has done is vandalism. The Council simply wishes to help Wikipedia stay accurate by providing an accurate statement, for which we have provided numerous sources. I would urge the admins to unblock the Council's primary account, as it is a pain to continue creating accounts just to get our point across. Thank you for your consideration. -ChairLion Sheds

Decline reason:

Role accounts, i.e. accounts for use by more than one person, are not allowed on Wikipedia. Also blocks apply to individuals, not accounts. Therefore you may not keep creating new accounts to evade the block. Finally, I suggest you read WP:COI regarding any conflict of interest you may have. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2017 (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.

Olive Branch

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).

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

Request reason:

If the admins of Wikipedia agree to unblock this account, the Council will cease its LTA siege against the Cat Creek, Montana article. What say you, admins?

Decline reason:

This is not remotely plausible. Yamla (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2017 (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.

@Yamla, what do you have to lose from this peace negotiation? How about a little WP:GOODFAITH for the Council? Catcreekcitycouncil (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]