User talk:DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated personal attacks and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 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).

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

Request reason:

Varying name in response to blockage of first username choice fails to amount to trolling accusation of sockpuppeting DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness. Appropriate actions taken per WP:DFTT.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for sockpuppetry. Please address the reason for your block, as noted above, if you wish to be unblocked. Specifically, personal attacks and tendentious editing by you need to be addressed. Jayron32 18:27, 1 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I forgive the trolling and both authors of it. Time has passed, with the opportunity for them to reflect and cool down and move forward in better ways. References have been supplied in my editing contributions, and commitment is made to make the effort to supply references/evidence, where challenged, in the future. The accusation of sockpuppeting, being "deceptive [activity] .. to circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policy" remains unfit and wholly beneath my contempt to otherwise dignify by response. Unblock demanded.

Decline reason:

Unblock denied. Thats not how it works pal, you want unblocking you need to show you understand why you were blocked and show you won't do it again. I.e. you're asking for forgiveness, not giving it. Smartass comments and arrogance aren't going to help you Jac16888 ^Talk 01:15, 2 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

To clarify, I am committing not to troll other users who have been forced to vary their username with allegations of sockpuppeting or like distraction. I also forgive the two other editors for the purpose of restarting in an atmosphere where the commitments I have made re distraction and re verifiable sourcing of content will be reciprocated. Therefore, unblock's demanded as reciprocation. All parties have had space to cool off and reflect, and the time is now apt to move forward as suggested, constructively. Note has been taken of what were offered as reasons motivating the block maneuver.DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Insufficient groveling. Third request; this page will now be protected. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 2 August 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.