User talk:Locomotive999

January 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Continued spamming of a reference. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tabercil (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (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).

Locomotive999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Using appropriate reference to articles cannot be termed as spamming. If you have any proof that the reference used in the articles are unrelated to the topic, you should bring it forward. The user called 'SQGibbon' is disruptively deleting important references. This is vandalism. He must be blocked from further editing.

Decline reason:

No, the burden is on you to explain the relevance of the addition, especially when it is the same addition of an external link dozens of times. Repeatedly adding an external link without any sort of discussion can be interpreted as inappropriate, and in this case I'm inclined to agree with the judgment of the blocking administrator. Kinu ^t/_c 17:26, 12 January 2015 (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.

Per WP:BLANKING, do not remove declined unblock requests. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to persistent blanking, I have revoked your talk page access. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Locomotive999, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SQGibbon (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]