User talk:Nosegays McToothen

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Davy Jones, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Clarince63 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. HalfShadow 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete comments by me on my own talk page and give me a "final warning". It's not "disruptive" for me to justify an edit on my own talk page. Nosegays McToothen (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was given for posting irrelevant messages and images on other talk pages, not yours. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being as we have neither time nor patience to waste on you, you should soon find your capacity to edit further curtailed if you continue. And don't try taking the piss with me; we both know what I'm referring to. HalfShadow 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy 96 01:42, 28 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I just don't think I was given enough warning, really. I was given a "final warning", and then the above contribution to my own talk page seemingly resulted in this block.

Decline reason:

Most people know that things like this are not helpful in an encyclopedia article without having to be warned even once. If you know this little about encyclopedia writing, the encyclopedia will probably be better off without your assistance. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:44, 28 February 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.

To clarify--he was blocked both for nonconstructive edits and vandalism while logged out as ~~79.76.203.179 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)~~72.58.152.5 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Blueboy 96 02:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that those IP addresses provided by Blueboy96 and edits made under those accounts are not mine. Why have they been connected to me? Nosegays McToothen (talk) 12:01, 28 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been connected, erroneously, with edits made by an anonymous IP, and have been blocked due to edits not made by me. I was told I would "find my capacity to edit further curtailed" if I continued to be disruptive, and then I was blocked without me making any further edits. Now I can see I've been attached to the edits of an anonymous poster, I can see I have been caught in the crossfire of something else. Please revert my block.

Decline reason:

Based on the edits to the Red Dwarf talkpage and the Davey Jones article alone (in other words, regardless of the IP edits) this account is being used solely for vandalism. Multiple warnings for disruption are not required for such a block in this case. (Crying "it's not me" when technical measures to determine otherwise is not a wise perspective). As the unblock request does not address the reason for the block, this request is declined (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 28 February 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.

Obviously the actual reasons for banning me aren't strong enough, or you wouldn't have generated such nonsense about "sock" accounts and so forth. I've had enough of this now, anyway; I know I'm dealing with people who have let their "power rights" get to their heads and aren't able to communicate on reasonable terms. Nosegays McToothen (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]