I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop placing that template on multiple people's pages. A sockpuppet investigation is a legitimate part of Wikipedia's processes, especially when a seemingly new user starts making edits that duplicate the edits of a previously blocked editor (and one who is already known to engage in sockpuppetry). If you are not a sockpuppet of FFGR79, the results of that investigation should show that. But no one is attacking you. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let be more clear: if you keep accusing others of attacking you, you yourself may be blocked for disruption and attacks, regardless of what the SPI says. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sparthorse (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence seems clear to me that you are FFGR79--your obsession with this image is the same and your way of talking is the same. I've indefinitely blocked you for sock-puppetry. If you wish to be unblocked, please log back in to the FFG79 account and request an unblock there. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a criminal preliminary announcement? Don't you touch on the contents of the report at all? This is not your playground place. Explain a reason for why those who cannot read Japanese language are editing the K-car. DigitalShop78 (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The block was done because the Checkuser data (which I cannot see, only a select group of user's can for privacy reasons) found that it was possible that you are the same user as FFGR79. When I reviewed both FFGR79's edit history and yours, there are a number of very striking similarities, as I explained above. If you wish to claim that you are not actually FFGR79, you are welcome to open an unblock request--use the information that's in the block template that Materialscientist provided. If you make such a request, another, different administrator will review the issue; if they disagree with me, I'm willing to discuss it further. However, that is the only thing that we are going to discuss here; so long as you are blocked, you are not able/welcome to edit K-car or any other article, nor are your concerns relevant, and thus we're not going to discuss them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 11:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
