User talk:Uraliams
Uraliams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WTF? I added a source for nicola roxon in my first ever post and now I am banned?
Decline reason:
The nature of the edit indicates that it was made by someone familiar enough with Wikipedia editing to show that this account is not your first account. Secondly, it substantially matched similar edits by User:Bruce99999 and his numerous sockpuppet accounts. It seems highly likely that the two accounts are run by the same person, which is not allowed.--Jayron32 12:20, 23 July 2009 (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.
Uraliams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Who in the world is Bruce999??? I saw that someone had removed the labor friends of Israel thing and put it back with a source? I've taken a look at this ?Bruce user and it seems that anyone who adds israel stuff is lumped in as the same person? I find it hard to believe that there is one person in the US, Europe, Australia that is doing this. It is laughable. My first edit was sourced, maybe there are a number of people out there who think a statement pro-settlements by an australian minister is relevant.
Decline reason:
Removing duplicate Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:40, 25 July 2009 (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.
- Would you agree to having us run a Checkuser to confirm that you are not Bruce999? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the compelling behavioral evidence here is the deep knowledge of WikiMarkup, especially with regard to sourcing codes, in the first edit. New accounts of users unfamiliar with Wikipedia just don't make edits like that with the first attempt. It is patently obvious based on that alone that this is not your first account, Bruce99999 is the most likely connection since, besides displaying an indepth knowledge of esoteric aspects of Wikipedia editing, you also make substantially the same edits as does he and his sockpuppets. Checkuser would be moot at this point. --Jayron32 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Uraliams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm happy for a checkuser thing to be run on me. In terms of the mark ups, I kust copied an another mark up and put in my link. Does that make me a criminal?? Just because I copied some code? If I can please add I only made one ever edit on wikip, all I did was put in that Nicola Roxon was a member of a government committee. There was no checkuser done, no check of the IP, no request for information - I was just blocked after one entry. The problem is that I can't even put a comment on the talkboard of the admin that blocked me. This is not fair and it is no wonder this one user has so many socks - it seems that no checks have been done in making sure they are real socks!!! At least let me respond to the admin that blocked me for adding sourced material :
Decline reason:
I agree with the other assessments made here. Your edit and familiarity with wikimarkup makes it seem likely you are a sockpuppet of this user. A checkuser request can only confirm that you are a sockpuppet; it cannot confirm your innocence, and requests of this nature are not honored for that reason. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (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.
You are failing to answer the question set you. It is very clear that you are familiar with wikipedia procedures. Claiming that this is not so is not believable. How have you acquired this experience? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if I could actually respond to you. I edited as an anon for quite some time at university and have learnt some things. There is nothing wrong with that or editing nicola roxon. Run a checkuser. I'm not that good, I don't know how to do references and just copy the code ( replacing the website). The big thing is that I have made one edit as a non anon. ONE EDIT! Run a checkuser. It is wrong to not allow me to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.242.63 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Checkuser cannot prove a negative. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)