User talk:FredC69

September 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (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).

FredC69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made a reasonable criticism of one of the so-called administrators here called @Ohnoitsjamie an ended with telling "it" your guess is as good as mine what the gender of this administrator is, that I will be making a formal complaint when I know where to send it about their administrative activities. Such as locking a page that is full of spurious and libellous claims and allowing these claims to continue. I supplied evidence proving the claims on the page were to use that well-known journalistic term bollocks. Shortly afterward I got this dullard @Praxidicae claiming that complaining about this administrator tantamount to a threat, dread to think if this person ever represented themselves in court because if they did it would literally be they got a fool for a client. Get blocked forever by Favonian for the vague claim but I was not there to build an encyclopaedia. When you allowed spurious claims that are not fact checked then I'm sorry to say this is not an encyclopaedia. Let's not forget the encyclopaedia Britannica was fat check for Nobel prize winners not unpopular geeky types do are probably still living at home with mum.

Decline reason:

Ah ha. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Yamla (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.