User talk:Reportingfakes
February 2015
Hello, I'm AgnosticPreachersKid. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Joseph Chinnock because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. APK whisper in my ear 05:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Joseph Chinnock, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It isn't defamatory content. It is real reviews for a fake persona. If you find it defamatory, perhaps that means you have either not read the content, or are one of Chinnocks many fake accounts
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Joseph Chinnock, you may be blocked from editing. APK whisper in my ear 05:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
you are reported as well
blocking this page so vehemently showed a lot. Thank you Joseph
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Joseph Chinnock. APK whisper in my ear 05:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead.. you will as well
By the way if you have such an issue with me making legitimate edits, then why are you trying so desperately to revive a page removed for lack of validity?[1]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Reportingfakes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edits I am attempting to make are legitimate and in keeping with the goal of Wikipedia to report truth. I cited every aspect of my edits and not one oas on my own page as the author and his guard dog account. The page was cited for deletion and was even deleted before for being such obvious spam. If the author is going to promote his scam so blatantly with Wikipedia's blessing, why not allow for the entire story to be told, not just his rose colored glasses portrayal Reportingfakes (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You'll need to take your campaign elsewhere; Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
Continued soapboxing
I've removed an unblock request (from an IP, but obviously this user) that continues the same soapboxing. I've also revoked talk page access and semi-protected. --Kinu t/c 15:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.