User talk:Fouldsythekingisbackagain

February 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Gilesgate has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; 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. Thank you. Marek.69 ^talk 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to the page Gilesgate Moor constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Belmont, County Durham. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give the newbie a break (and some guidance)[edit]

Fellow editors, this user is trying to fix a few articles related to the area he lives in, that are seriously out of date. We have discussed a few problems with his editing technique here, and I believe his recent edits to be in good faith (1st edit notwithstanding). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Message[edit]

Is this message on my talk page also good faith?:

In my opinion, the amount of times I have edited the page and it has been reverted back followed by some pathetic comment by a Wikipedia admin, I had the right to get the message into your nerdy little brains. :)Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Marek.69 ^talk 03:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop complaining and if you have a problem with me sort it out with me, don't drag other people into it.Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reformatted and put this message under a new title. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:33, 23 February 2009 (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 User:Marek69. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Promised to be good, and wasn't actually vandalism only (good faith contributor with several vandalistic edits).

Request handled by: Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Note from blocking admin. I see now that I was incorrect when I asserted that the account was "vandalism only". However, a high percentage of the edits are vandalistic, and I believe that the indefinite block is justified on this basis. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I unblock, will you agree not to vandalize anything else? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one else gives me a hard time when I'm just trying to state a point, yes I will agrre not to.Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you agree not to vandalize again under any circumstances? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree, just tell people not to give me a hard time.Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to edit again. I have this talk page watchlisted; any further legitimate vandalism warnings will result in the reinstatement of the block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Suspected sockpuppet of User:Fouldsy91; see other users and compare contributions.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. —Travis ^talk 04:20, 23 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK right....some of them haven't even been me they were my friends on my laptop when I left it on to cause trouble and I've been making useful edits on this account.

Decline reason:

Your friend did it? It's almost unheard of. You'll need to do more to convince an administrator. Kevin (talk) 05:08, 23 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So if it was me why have I been making meaningful edits tonight? Wouldn't I just keep on vandalising?

Decline reason:

You have given clear evidence of being unable to control your account (even within minutes of being given a second chance with notice that future edits would be scrutinized carefully) therefore we cannot allow it to continue to be used to waste our time here. DMacks (talk) 06:09, 23 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

being cocky now are we? Would you dare be like that to my face?

Decline reason:

Abusing the reviewing admin is not going to get you unblocked. Kevin (talk) 06:26, 23 February 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.

Note - I have changed the block to prevent further talk page abuse. Kevin (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]