User talk:SABMW

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SABMiller. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. new account or not, the rule still applies WuhWuzDat 18:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of SABMillerWatch (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 29 November 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).

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

Request reason:

What the hell is going on here - of cause I am the same person I was told to create a new account so I did. (HJ Mitchel said :"You're blocked because of your username, but you're welcome to create a new account with a more appropriate userame"). then I get blocked for doing so - what the fuck !

Decline reason:

Declined without review of circumstances due to use of obscene language. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 29 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for the language but it is rather frustrating as I feel that I am being victimised, I would like to know what is going on here - of cause I am the same person I was told to create a new account so I did. (HJ Mitchel said :"You're blocked because of your username, but you're welcome to create a new account with a more appropriate userame"). then I get blocked for doing so.

Decline reason:

You're almost right there; the block notice continued to say "you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you" (emphasis mine). This username isn't any better than the previous one, as it's simply an abbreviation for SABMillerWatch (see our username policy). For you to be unblocked, we'll need to accept another change in username - that you run by us first - and it is also expected that you stop edit warring and review our guidelines on conflicts of interest and reliable sources. I will correct the entry in your block log, however, as you are correct, your previous block did permit you to create a second account. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:52, 29 November 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.

Aside from your username, the problem is the allegation you're making. You can't just add that sort of thing to Wikipedia without sources and edit warring to reinstate it is doubly unacceptable. If you;re willing to edit within our policies, though, we can talk about unblocking... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 29 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Is "This is my Account 11" ok then ? As for the claim that the allegation is "without sources", if you read the whole page, you will see that it is sourced and that it is reported by the The Guardian (see footnote 7) SABMW (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the accusation of "edit warring", again if you look at it Wuhwuzdat undid my change for being "UNREFERENCED", when I pointed out to him he was wrong he decided to change tack and changed his mind about why he did not want it there, it was him that could not take being proven wrong.

Decline reason:

For you to be unblocked, please suggest a new username you might wish. Kindly read our Username policy before choosing a name. Even after you change your username, should you edit articles with a Conflict of interest, please note that you may be summarily blocked again. This will be a good time to go through the Five pillars that are the foundations of Wikipedia. I should request you to note most the pillars that allude to Civility, Verifiability and Neutral point of view. Thanks and kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:05, 30 November 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.