User talk:Dick Scalper

I'm a Dickens fan. Dick Scalper (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for self-confessed sockpuppetry, as you did at Talk:Circumcision. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

bizarre and unfounded accusation

Decline reason:

Please post another unblock request that answers the question below. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2010 (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.

Could you explain your comment, then? It seems rather odd, given that nobody in that (exceptionally long) discussion had mentioned socks prior to you... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reading over the Discussion history, I saw Blackworm's insinuation that sock puppets were obstructing other views from the article. Apparently it's not an open Discussion at all but a forum for the Old School Diehards.

Dick Scalper (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

No rational basis or proof of allegation -- I, Richard Scalper, deny it.

Decline reason:

But we don't unblock on your say-so alone (Really, I wouldn't have used up an unblock request to answer Hersfold's question. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2010 (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.

Are you saying that your username is based on your real name, which is Richard Scalper? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And YOU say that your username is based on your real name, which is Fisher Queen? It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has been taken over by a mob of Sock Puppets, Meat Puppets, & Assorted Illiterate Types. You little fellas play at being "editors" while we responsible adults make the world a better place. It could not be condoned that I exposed the Sock Puppets who rule certain articles, so the sock & meat puppets must accuse ME of their own transgression. Pax Vobiscum. Dick Scalper (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]