User talk:DangerTM

This account is a sockpuppet of Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tom.mevlie for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

G O I N G

This user was going, but is staying for a while to clear his name.

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).

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

Request reason:

Yeah, but for the other things I wouldn't have been indefinately blocked, such as incivility, which is the whole point of my argument

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter. You're a vandal, and an uncivil one at that. You aren't welcome here anymore. Vanish away, like you state you wish to do. — Jmlk 1 7 06:20, 19 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sockpuppet account, I have used my right to vansish, I have not used sockpuppetry on this account, you can block me for the other things, but don't block me for sockpuppetry, vanishing is well wothin my rights as a wikipedian

Decline reason:

You were blocked for the other things. .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 06:08, 19 March 2008 (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.

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked for gross incivility and personal attacks, [1] [2], [3]; as well as abusing sockpuppets: Sockpuppeteer case, Admission of sockpuppetry. Dreadstar † 02:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected due to user vandalizing own page. Dreadstar † 06:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence-"15:58, 18 March 2008 DangerTM (Talk | contribs) (993 bytes) (undo) on his Talk page

He wrote I AM User:Tom.mevlie, AND YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT. " — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY

This is not a sockpuppet account, saying that I am tom.mevlie is not an admission of being a sockpuppet, if you haven't noticed, all of those accounts have been inactive, along with tom.mevlie, it is absurd that you block me for something that I haven't done. From this account, I haven't partaken in any sockpuppetry activities. Block me for the other things, I implore you, but do not block me for the sockpuppetry thing, it is simply not true. I wanted to vanish, I wanted to flee from the tom.mevlie image, let me go in peace and you will never hear from me or this stupid account ever again.DangerTM (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know I have, I don't care about the incivility, don't you blokes listen? What I want is for you to reply to my posting instead of just saying the same thing, what I am being blocked for is not the problem, why you won't tell me why you won't disbale the sockpup block is.DangerTM (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]