User talk:Nubbygarter

January 2014

Hello, I'm Jackmcbarn. I noticed that you recently removed all content from User talk:Aleksa Lukic, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to User:IronGargoyle has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; instead, use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove all content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to User:IronGargoyle. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a vandal account. I have made valid edits in my history and I only removed content from a talk page providing a valid reason due to it containing inappropriate content.

Decline reason:

Once you started blanking other volunteers' user pages and talk pages, you crossed a line into malicious vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:31, 16 January 2014 (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.

You have made very few useful edits, and were already blocked for vandalism once. And what "inappropriate content" did User:IronGargoyle and User talk:Aleksa Lukic contain? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first block for vandalism was incorrectly performed. The image I placed on 'Niels Bohr' was apt and correct. The inappropriate content contained made a number of sexual, innapropriate references. Besides which, you have failed to complete the blocking process, with multiple warnings, and 1, 2, 3, 7 and 14 day blocks. Nubbygarter (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am only removing the unblock review while I am blocked because it says the expiry time is indefinite. What else am I supposed to do? Nubbygarter (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

None of the moderators reviewing my block have taken notice of my reason for blanking out the talk pages - they contained inappropriate content.

Decline reason:

I have read through, in their entirety, both usertalk pages that you blanked. They contain no inappropriate content whatsoever, and your blanking of the pages is straightforward vandalism.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:28, 17 January 2014 (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.

Your repeated edit at Niels Bohr was, incidentally, also vandalism. If you seriously believe that it was apt and correct then this throws into question your ability ever to edit here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]