User talk:09jamieboro

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Pebble has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Box Head, New South Wales. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Editing. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Vandalism. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why vandalism?[edit]

The warnings above explain why your edits have been identified as vandalism. Read the information provided. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 29 January 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).

09jamieboro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear person who may read this.i would like to appeal against my ban as i believe that i was banned for a reason which i believe was not worthy of being banend for.for example i simply commented asking why i had been given a final warning.this final warning in my opnion was basically saying "you cannot comment anywhere on wikipedia again" however i obviously did not know it meant this and i inadvertatially broke this rule by commenting on a talk page asking why this final warning had been issued.i am now truely sorry for my reckless actions of 'vandalising' pages and i now understand how the banning system works.i would appreicate it very much if you read this and reviewed your decesion to ban me.i assure you that i have leart from what i have done and will do my best to make sure that when i believe a page needs editing i avoid editing it in a way would appears as though i have vandalised it.for the final time , i am sorry, please forgive me, thank you

Decline reason:

You say you are sorry right after saying you don't think you deserved to be blocked. Contradictory arguments make it difficult for us to believe you are telling the truth, or even understand what is going on. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 30 January 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).

09jamieboro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

since you cannot see that i am honestly saying sorry i shall make a new account,if you have not blocked my IP address and shall do my best to prevent putting irellevant content on wikipedia pages.in your reply it says that i am Contradicting myself however i believe i am not.for instance i was saying i believe i was banned unlawfully however if the case is i was banned properly and fairly then i am sorry for what i have done.if this is contradicting please say so.following on from your reply it says i did not address the reason for block.the reason for the block was that i was commenting on your page asking why i was given a final warning.the final warning was issued as i had edited the page stockton-on-tees where i was being helpful as they was 2 vital pieces of information missed off.these were the creation of wellington square in stockton town centre and the invention of the friction match in stockton also.i request that you review your decession to decline my request to be unbanned.thank you from --09jamieboro (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you are blocked because all your edits are non-constructive, and this request does not convince me that this will change if we unblock you. Sandstein 23:37, 31 January 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.

Note[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that continuously posting fruitless unblock notices can lead to your talk page being protected so that only "admins" can edit it. Furthermore, creating a new account to bypass an active block will result in both you and your alternate account being blocked (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). Therefore, it is not a good idea to contest a block by bypassing it. Thanks! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/09jamieboro. Thank you. Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]