User talk:Sharon and Caron
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Sharon and Caron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Are you serious? Which of my edits is vandalism? I'll go back through each of my edits and prove to you that it is not vandalism. * [1] - A true statement of bias in an article - NOT VANDALLISM. * [2] Pointing out on the talk page why the article is biased - NOT VANDALISM. * [3] Asking editors at WikiProject Israel to help fix the article - NOT VANDALISM. * [4] and [5] - Removing the "retired" tag from the userpage and talkpage of an editor who edited after he posted the tag. The "retired" tag is confusing for new editors who may think the user is actually retired when he is still editing. NOT VANDALISM. * [6] - Posting to the NPOV noticeboard calling attention to the Yasser Arafat bias problem - NOT VANDALISM. * [7] A comment about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov on the TALK PAGE (not the article itself). NOT VANDALISM. It emerges that NONE of the edits I made under this account are vandalism. Now, I know what you will say. You will say that if I know this much about Wikipedia, I must not be a new editor. This is true. But I will say this to you: MY EDITS WERE NOT VANDALISM. I DEMAND THAT MY EDITS SHALL BE REINSTATED. If you will not reinstate my edits, then please unblock me so that I can reinstate them myself and thereby improve Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
Even before reviewing your edits, your tone strikes me as unduly contentious and combative, starting off with "Are you serious?" and just getting worse when you start using ALL CAPS and then BOLDFACING things. And then we take a look at the edits you so helpfully provided diffs for: #1 starts your Wikipedia career off with an edit summary that calls the article "a joke". It's followed with a talk page post that introduces you to us as someone who bookends his thoughts between "You've got to be kidding me" and "Are you all that stupid?" You then invite people at a WikiProject that is more aware than others that its subject is a source of ongoing controversy and editing disputes to "gang up" and go to an article that is even more subject to that than most other I/P dispute articles to "save our reputation" (an edit that leads me to strongly suspect you're a troll). You really come across as someone looking for a fight, not here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. Or just go out to your local watering hole, knock some unsuspecting patron's glass to the floor and ask them if they'd like to go outside and make something of it. I grant you one thing: you should not be blocked for vandalism. You should be blocked for being a disruption-only account. If your reputation is that important to you I'd be happy to change the block so that's the stated reason. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (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.
Sharon and Caron (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In addition to what Daniel said, your username is also against policy because it appears to represent two people. —DoRD (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that had also occurred to me. Although, had that been the only problem, since their edits have otherwise made it clear that there's one person behind the account, I'd just ask them to change their name. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)