User talk:FireworkPowder

Status: Sleeping

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is FireworkPowder's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Userboxes

This user is a fan of English football.

This user likes fireworks.

Bolton

Hello, Bolton played today and lost 2-0 to Villa which means they can only get 9 points, which means the Maximum they can finish on is 41. BBC Article also confirmed it :) https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47904086 --MKY661 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MKY661: They are 9 points behind with 9 points remaining, they still have a minor chance of survival. FireworkPowder (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're 11 points behind, maybe the table just hasn't updated yet cause Norwich Vs. Sheff Wed was on :) https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/championship/table --MKY661 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MKY661: Ah yes, my mistake, feel free to change as such, enjoy your day

FireworkPowder (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week for violations of our policy on multiple accounts. If you wish to appeal, you may do so, but please read WP:GAB first. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Ive been told I am blocked for multiple accounts, but I don't have any account other than this one. FireworkPowder (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring with both your account and while logged out is a policy violation. —DoRD (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2019 (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 with that, you're indef'd. If any reviewing CU/admin wants to know why you're AH999, they can email and I'll explain. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Im being accused of multiple account usage when this is my only account and theirs no proof of any wrongdoing. I'd like to be unblocked please. FireworkPowder (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You mean, apart from your admission of editing while logged out? I believe the blocking admin, I believe you've been violating WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2019 (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.

Also noting for the reviewing admin that this was what your page originally looked like before you removed a discussion we had. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was accidentally removed whilst I got rid of an old unblock request to start a new one. FireworkPowder (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

The only other account I used was my ip which was accidental as I didn't realise I was logged out, i'll try to be more careful in future. FireworkPowder (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2019 (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.

I didn't realise I was logged out... Except that that's not quite true, is it? I understand that you were using one browser while logged in, and another while logged out, so the deception seems rather intentional to me. —DoRD (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]