User talk:Leannemarketer

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 06:26, 19 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

i did one thing wrong and it was undone. i was then approached aggressiveely by 2 admins that had nothing to do with the subject and they continued to harrass me even when i asked them to stop. if this isnt a voilation of human rights then what is!Leannemarketer (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your editing so far has been 100% vandalism, trolling, and threats. Nobody has been harassing you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 19 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

i would like some proof of this. i have only done one post so yes 100% would be right. but no i was warned and i took the warning serious, and then your admins decided to get aggressive with me. this is wrong and i demand justis here Leannemarketer (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ok then.

this was vandalism
this, although not vandalism, is odd: it's placed right ABOVE where it says "put new additions at the bottom", was aggressive, and against the community-nature of Wikipedia
You have NO RIGHTS on a private website. You don't appear to want to follow the rules, and thus admins have had no choice but to protect the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 19 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

yes the first one was vandalism, the second one was after i got a warning i was then aggressively approached by an admin. this is acosting and is against the law, i told him to leave me along and stop harrassing me and i was then giving a block. this is against my human rights of freedom of speak and this has been decined. it doesnt matter where it is, if its public property, private property or a PRIVATE WEBSITE, i have rights and i am entitled to them. by you saying i have no rights you to are taking away my rights. that is stupid its like saying u can murder me in your house cause its private property and i have no rights. have a think about that first before u decide to not lift my banLeannemarketer (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, sir (ma'am?), I'm all broken up about your rights. Please read this. Your analogy is misplaced ... I may not have the right to kill you in my house but you wouldn't deny that I have the right to tell you to get the hell out. So you still want your rights? Well, guess what? I am more than willing to accommodate you. You have the right to remain silent, and believe me you will have no problems exercising it since I'm revoking access to this talk page since you have utterly wasted our time with these three whiny and petulant unblock requests. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 20 May 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.

"Aggressively"?? You got a couple of standard warnings for your stupid edits. They advised you that screwing around would get you blocked. So, you screwed around. If you had "rights" the vandalism took them all away; period. The unblock request above will merely get you permanently removed. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leannemarketer for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]