User talk:Reggae Sauce

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Q96 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Creamy!^Talk 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ian Huntley. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Your request to be blocked has been granted! You will be blocked from editing for a period of 1 year in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

As per the above saga almost two years ago, i have grown up considerably. After being blocked for almost two years i think it's about time i was given a second chance, could i be unblocked so that i can edit constructively.

Decline reason:

Nope, socks of User:David winslow do not get unblocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 8 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Please explain how i've become a sock of David Winslow, all i'm asking is to be unblocked so that i can edit constructively. Yes, i've vandalised before, it was two years ago, i have a mental illness, i'm not happy with checkusers and their false accusations.

Decline reason:

This all seems very familiar. The childish vandalism the old account asking to be unblocked, didn't we just do this on another page? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 8 March 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.

Ah, here it is: User talk:Oakey47. An almost identical case, the same type of idiotic childish vandalism, the same time period, the same tone to the unblock request. If you are serious about wanting to contribute constructively, why even bother with these tainted accounts? You'd be better off with a brand new account. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]