User talk:Colorect

Repost of List of rectum related deaths

A tag has been placed on List of rectum related deaths requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Exxolon (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colorect. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BumLawd. Exxolon (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry by DavidYork71. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:15, 10 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Have the honour to reply to refutation of the speedy deletion attempt, fairly supplied. The article doesn't duplicate another existing, and has verifiable content. It's a proper list. Talk, not bully. Sure, it confounds your parenting. Try it anyway. An article might result.Colorect (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock request doesn't address reason for the block, which is that this account is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Edits by banned users are removed in accordance the banning policy. If the article has merit no doubt a non-banned user will create it in due course. Euryalus (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2009 (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.