User talk:Politicalworkingdog

G'day, I am most certainly not a puppet of anyone, I started editing only yesterday evening. I'd like to respond to some allegations which have been made against me my another user, Lears Fool. 1. This is my one and only account. 2. I previously edited this site as User:220.239.110.56 3. I did edit quickly after creating this site and duh! Obiously I wanted to continue editing. I was not aware that was against the rules 4. I started editing late last night, not this morning 5. My adding of 'left-wing' was entirely differnet to someone else disruptively placing POV editis like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Greens&diff=417026967&oldid=417024259

6. Why is the user Nick D taking down my constructive edits in his aggresive way eg my one at Katter's Australian Party?

Thanks

Odd, unfounded, not evidence based

I am surprised that their are no policies in relation to making allegations against people without evidence and simply blocking them without a full, proper and independent investigation into the allegations. I protest my innocence. Politicalworkingdog (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page axed for no reason

I was incredibly shocked and amazed to find the page which I spent over 1 hour working on Norfolk Island general election, 2010 gone. Nick D deleted the page out of pure spite to me, despite the fact I strongly deny any wrongdoing. This is unfair, and my time and hard work has now been wasted. The axing of this page is along with numerous other changes made by Nick D who has clearly been stalking me in an odd way. He also removed my contributions to other pages, even ones that contained sources and have been present on pages for many months.Politicalworkingdog (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. It is obvious that you're Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs).. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 17 June 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).

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

Request reason:

G'day, there is no substancial or significant genuine evidence to link me to anyone else. The main coincidence is that both me and the other individual have edited Aus federal election page. This is not surprising. This is a highly important page. I have never been anyone else, and I am an honest person. I originally edited as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/220.239.110.56 which evidence shows, I was editing Wikipedia before the trouble maker. In fact, I started editing in January 2011 as an IP. The other user started in March 2011. Politicalworkingdog (talk) 10:09 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sock of Enidblyton11. TN X Man 15:17, 20 June 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.

No checkuser has been operated. Get your facts right mate.Politicalworkingdog (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]