User talk:Londonbridge 1

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keanubreeze/Archive, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Benjamin Robert Potter

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Benjamin Robert Potter, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Keanubreeze (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (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).

Londonbridge 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How am I blocked? I've never even heard of Keanubreeze before!!! Is this a joke? I was trying to add a name who is worthy of a wiki page.

Decline reason:

Sorry, blanking the sockpuppet investigation for that editor within a minute of creating this account and then later making similar edits makes this claim of innocence dubious at best. Kuru (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (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's why your first edit was at Keanubreeze's SPI page, right? Elockid ^(Talk) 00:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]