User talk:MyThoughtsExactly

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 8 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was arbitrarily blocked by Ohnoitsjamie because, and without a shred of evidence, he accused me of sockpuppetry. Previously we had discussed edits that I had made to the Jeremy Hunt (politician) article. My edits were, I felt, within the rules and as they were a genuinely newsworthy event that had happened, did not contain anything libleous or profane and were consequently worthy of inclusion. He disagreed, which is fair enough, but in order to close the debate down he accused me of sockpuppetry and then blocked my account indefinitely. He can not back up his claim that I was using another computer to make further edits. This is pure spite and an outrageous abuse of his position.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but unblock requests must discuss your behavior and not attack other editors. TN X Man 20:12, 9 December 2010 (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.

MyThoughtsExactly (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked. I feel that this is a mistake on the administrators side. I do not edit Wikipedia unless I am logged onto my user account. MyThoughtsExactly (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It seems very likely to me that you are the same person as User:Genghis mccann. If I'm wrong, though, it looks like your only interest at Wikipedia right now is in disrupting the encyclopedia by trying to force an entirely unencyclopedic bit of trivia into an article where it doesn't belong, so Wikipedia will not have lost any useful content by leaving you blocked. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 9 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked. I feel that this is a mistake on the administrators side. I do not edit Wikipedia unless I am logged onto my user account. I am not user GenghisMccann as previously stated. I was accused of sockpuppetry from ip 195.11.198.1 not of being user GenghisMccann. Indeed GenghisMccann (and others on that article) resorted to vulgar language but were not blocked. The edits in question that I made were not profane or libelous and were a newsworthy event (although they were disputed as trivial which is fair enough). The edits were not the reason for the block, the accusation of sockpuppetry was. That is unfounded. Assumption of good faith is a Wikipedia value after all. MyThoughtsExactly (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry issues aside, if you really think that your edits to Jeremy Hunt (politician) were appropriate, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. See WP:BLP. Sandstein 22:11, 10 December 2010 (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.