User talk:ECayce187
Your request to delete this talk page
[edit]I have declined this request because user talk pages are not normally deleted, see WP:DELTALK. With a few exceptions, none of which apply here, you may blank anything you like from your talk pages (including this message), but the history is retained for the record. JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
ECayce187 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Because I have not been vandalizing articles, or trolling,etc. anymore. And my edits have all been good, or at least mediocre.
Decline reason:
I've run a checkuser, and you're 
Technically indistinguishable to JRMillar (talk · contribs). In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
ECayce187 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Because I will not set up sockpuppet accounts or alternative accounts without wikipedia's permission in the future. I will only make sourced, responsible edits that fit in the overall flow of an article. I will not harass anyone even if they harass me, and I will not even log into other accounts without the permission of wikipedia.
Decline reason:
So, you admit this is a sockpuppet account? In which case, you should log into your original account, and make an unblock request there. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
ECayce187 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have only made good or at least mediocre edits from this account. This edit,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&diff=prev&oldid=644330326, was undeniably a good, neutral edit, adding previously unknown information here. And it was sourced. Here's another good edit I made, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Cayce&diff=prev&oldid=643008998, it added information that was sourced about additional clients of Cayce's. I also added other citations to the Edgar Cayce article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Cayce&diff=prev&oldid=643009812,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Cayce&diff=643783623&oldid=643332851. One of the criticisms of me before was my editing was unsourced. In the age of consent in Europe article, I sought to link the article to the proper law, Article 227-25, for the main law, when it was to a different law in the same article,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_Europe&diff=644128153&oldid=644127164#cite_note-27. It had 227-25 in the article link to 227-27 on the internet, which didn't make sense. I also changed Indiana's entry to reflect the fact that it has abolished class A-D felonies, which is true. I have visited the crybaby bridge in my county, and managed to discover its correct location and add it to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crybaby_Bridge&diff=next&oldid=643296784. I added info about Brit Hume working for Ralph Nader, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brit_Hume&diff=prev&oldid=643324039, that was an important part of his career. This edit that was reverted abolished a non-sourced claim and replaced it with a sourced one,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverted-Justice&diff=prev&oldid=643465269. I added a citation for a William Kristol quote that was non-sourced here,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Kristol&diff=prev&oldid=643714147. Even this edit I regret,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverted-Justice&diff=643443822&oldid=643443729, has debateable merits, because Perverted Justice is an extremist group, so agreeing with their labeling of a person as a pedophile automatically might be a mistake. They label sex with anyone younger than either 16, 17, or 18 pedophilia automatically, they call the perpetrators "wannabe pedos" on the site, but not all of them are pedophiles, because pedophiles have victims who are 12 or younger generally, and most of the victims on the show were 13 or older, which is beyond puberty. I also added a citation to this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Bash&diff=prev&oldid=644346934. I added a citation here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_King_%28journalist%29&diff=prev&oldid=644348452. I added a citation for the article about former CNN political analyst Bill Schneider,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Schneider_%28journalist%29&diff=prev&oldid=643149394. I corrected incorrect information in the Kenneth Starr article, that Flyer22 changed back to a previous incorrect version, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Starr&diff=next&oldid=644286517. The incorrect version that she went back to stated that Republicans voted to find President innocent of both impeachment articles, that is not true, only 5 did, the other 5 only voted to acquit on one of the charges. Also, Flyer changed this change, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16_%28number%29&diff=prev&oldid=644341490, that I made, but I was correct. 16 and older is the age of consent in all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unlike in the USA, where different states have different laws, it is not the most common, its the only one in the UKGBNI. I also think this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15_%28number%29&diff=prev&oldid=644342311, was an improvement because avert is not the best source, I replaced it with specific examples, and I gave sources for those states and from unicef, although the UN's bias is evidenced by fact the fact the UN has demanded the age of consent for marriage be raised to either 16 or 18 in all countries,it is probably a better source than avert. I also added citations to the Rowland Evans article, which Flyer deleted, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rowland_Evans&diff=next&oldid=644345379. My editing is definitely improved now compared to what it was like before. Also, in this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_Asia&diff=644953394&oldid=644952046, that Flyer reverted me on, she is mistaken. The age of consent in Russia is not only 16 years, but 16 years plus having at least begun puberty,www.legislationline.org/documents/id/8916. If an adult were still prepubescent, which is rare, having sex with the person would still be considered statutory rape/child molesting in Russia. I understand that I cannot use multiple accounts anymore without permission. I understand not to harass others on the site. I understand not to edit war. And I understand to source everything I state.
Decline reason:
As you have made it clear that you will not discuss the actual reason for your block, and since you've made all of these same requests and promises before with other socks, I've removed your access to this page. Kuru (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
- You're dodging the question of whether this is a sock puppet account. PhilKnight (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.167.235 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)