User talk:Jal529

Blocked

Based on the identical spelling mistake made in this edit by a second editor and this edit by a third I can only conclude that you are operating two accounts as sockpuppets. I am therefore blocking all accounts; you may appeal via the process given in the notice below. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Jal529 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can assure you that I am not a sock. After reading the conversations that had been going on under the page, I saw that the "Incident" thread was a cause for concern. I agreed with User:Fred Bauder. I then went on to look in the history of the page and saw how Rhghes2137 worded his edited. I thought this was a reasonable argument for editing it so I copied and pasted it. Again, I can assure you that there is no sock puppetry taking place. Jal529 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even you're not a sockpuppet, I see all the signs of meatpuppetry. Max Semenik (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2012 (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.