User talk:Clidog
|
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]
Gregorian calender
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Gregorian calendar, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
June 2012
[edit] Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Canberra. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Please cite a source if Canberra features an oceanic climate. Adjkasi (discuss me) 03:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Your edit to Christianity by country
[edit]I reverted your edit to that page because the Catholic Church is the world's largest Christian church. Adjkasi (discuss me) 04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Christianity by country, you may be blocked from editing. The two north and south churches belong to that page. Adjkasi (discuss me) 04:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Great Basalt Wall National Park, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please add between the number and the unit. Adjkasi (discuss me) 04:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try and find a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 81M (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Maissy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Unblock
[edit]
Clidog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not a sockpuppet of the user "Giornorosso". I don't know what to say to defend myself, because this accussation is totally unjust and rude. I was blocked by the user WilliamH based on no proof! --Clidog (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have carefully compared the edits of the two accounts. I notice that they are very, very similar, in both editing style and areas of interest. I have also looked at the blocking admin, and I notice that User:WilliamH has checkuser ability, which means he has access to technical evidence used to identify editors using multiple accounts. I don't feel that I see enough evidence to think this is an improper block; in fact, I think it seems more likely than not that this account and User:Giornorosso are operated by the same person. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
Clidog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've also looked at the Giornorosso's edits and I don't see any similarities except for the climate thing. But shared interest in one issue can arouse suspicion, but it can't be a reason for blocking per se. I believe that the User:WilliamH didn't use his checkuser ability, because if he did, he would find out that I'm not a sockpuppet. Also look at the user compare report - total combined edits : 0. Again, the only basis for my block was a) the gang rape and b) my interest in climate. I swear that I've never had any accounts before. --Clidog (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The pattern of edits are the same, as are the topic areas. You've also used your IP to remove the prod at Maissy, which wasn't terribly bright as it geolocates to the same area as previous IP socks of Giornorosso (talk · contribs). Please use your original account to make unblock requests, but you are not allowed to edit otherwise. Kuru (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
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.