User talk:DusanSK

June 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 16 June 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).

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

Request reason:

"not sure who you're socking for, but it's pretty blatant" is that a reason to block me? you don't even specify whose sock I am accused to be? I am not a sock

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of banned user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:24, 16 June 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.

...and that's why the edit summary on your first contribution ever was inaccurate, but matched one two below it in the history, which was the other editor's 3rd revert, and your second contribution was to request protection on that page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was the correct argumentation(DusanSK (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What about this argumentation from the opposite side:

(cur | prev) 00:32, 16 June 2010 Hobartimus (talk | contribs) (10,255 bytes) (per Squash Racket)? (DusanSK (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]