User talk:Fanalysis

May 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Laos has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Laos was changed by Fanalysis (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954103 on 2017-05-19T16:32:16+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanalysis, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fanalysis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

THANKX

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Foreign relations of Laos into Laos. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of LanguageXpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 07:26, 29 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Procedural flaws in my blocking. One I have not been given any notice of sock puppet investigation. Two I was not able to defend my self for reason one. Three Checkuser has not linked me with LanguageXpert. Four, I am a suspect not confirmed so block is not justified unless proven. I undertake, This account is not a sock puppet Fanalysis (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are obviously violating WP:SOCK. This is a clear-cut case. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2017 (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.

Reviewer encouraged to look at another blocked sock [1]. —SpacemanSpiff 11:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]