User talk:Saf 1

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Tourettskee (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Appeal

I'd rather he appealed here, but he is appealing to me over MSN Messenger. He is my friend, but as I have told him I am primarily and foremost serving the encyclopaedia. I am currently reviewing the evidence and will report back soon. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to appeal, he needs to post an unblock request here. Having said that, a history of sockpuppets used to repeatedly recreate an article just for the purposes of vandalism really is going to be hard to come back from. Thanks, Gwernol 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a sock (or at least he says not, and he has not lied before), that article is listed at Encyclopaedia Dramatica to be recreated. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. So, "all" he has to explain is why he decided it was a good idea to repeatedly recreate that article on instruction from Encyclopdia Dramatica, after being warned not to, particularly given the contents he was creating... Gwernol 23:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he is appealing as we speak. I do actually agree with you though, even if I am his friend. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Saf, and I created the article because I believe something with a magnitude of the Mitchell Henderson case deserves to have an article here. I see no reason why it cannot exist here.

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).

Saf 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I am Saf, and I created the article because I believe something with a magnitude of the Mitchell Henderson case deserves to have an article here. I see no reason why it cannot exist here. Had those warnings come BEFORE I saved my edits, I would most definitely have stopped. However, the first time, the server timed out, and I was unhappy with my second save so I saved a third time. Only then did I realise I had recieved warnings. Also, I am not a sockpuppet, I am Saf, Lord of the Internet. Kidding ;) Anyways, please give me my account back, cheers.--Saf 1 (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The article you created was raw nonsense, not a mere misunderstanding of the notability criteria. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (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).

Saf 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey Gwernol can you unblock my account? I've been blocked for 8 months and I have learnt the error of my ways it's kinda ridiculous really I can't even edit my own user page, anyways I'll be a good boy now plspls :)

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. — Sandstein 19:49, 13 January 2009 (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.