User talk:Ilovehorrorstories

Nomination of Andy Cook (criminal) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andy Cook (criminal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (criminal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Anyone leaving me messages on my talk must leave them here

February 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 21:15, 6 February 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).

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

Request reason:

That is not fair, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about people and their lifes. Not having to follow any polices

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not social media, and I'm not convinced you recognize the difference, based on the gross failure to abide by WP:BLPNAME even when warned by Huon that such behaviour was unacceptable. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 6 February 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.

That would be more convincing if this very point hadn't been discussed at my talk page before. Huon (talk) 21:37, 6 February 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).

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

Request reason:

By the way, I am User:MRivera25, I used a sockpuppet. But you guys are sort of lucky I grew up a little first and made GOOD contributions this time around

Decline reason:

No reason given to consider an unblock. Unblock request must be made on your original account in any case. If you have had talk page access revoked there, you'll want to use WP:UTRS. Given your admitted sockpuppetry, you won't be eligible for unblock consideration for likely another six months at least. Yamla (talk) 21:54, 6 February 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.