User talk:GB Lothian
Banned without appropriate reason[edit]
GB Lothian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been confirmed that I'm not having multiple accounts and I should not be blocked because of abusing multiple accounts.
Decline reason:
Ok, I guess this edit summary was intended as a joke?
In all seriousness, even if you're not the same person, it doesn't matter, because you could easily be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2014 (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.
GB Lothian (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
GB Lothian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, it was. Plus I will also stop(actually I have already stopped) the editing madness as you can tell from last week. I didn't do anything even they did revert my edit. Also the edit-warring ban usually has a shorter period of blocking. "Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours." Hope you can reconsider this case as the penalty was a bit too serious. Thank you.
Decline reason:
You admitted multiple times to being someone else. Your WP:ABF comments below, however, seal the deal: accusing others of disruption or vandalism when their actions most certainly do not meet that definition is unacceptable at any time. At least OTHER editors choose to discuss and try and gain consensus, whether you agree with that consensus or not the panda ₯’ 09:57, 29 August 2014 (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.
GB Lothian (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
GB Lothian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For the topic below, I wrote it because I really find this unfair, There're many solution other than "deleting the whole line", which the action is wrong. But he just 'revert' another user's revert and say someone 'reverted' for one time instead of having a talk, even I'll write something why would I have a change. I also have to say that, if you look careful enough, the whole "I'm Instantnood" thing is just an irony towards their WP:ABF, always saying I'm a sockpuppet of some banned user. And I find it funny how I was denied the unban request by using this reason instead. There's no actual evidence "ref : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood&oldid=prev&diff=622981565" that I really am Instantnood. Plus, seriously, I'd never admit myself as Instantnood. I know proving someone else did something wrong does not mean I'm correct, but having me banned forever using the wrong reason is definitely not necessary. I hope admins do things here a bit more equitably. Thank you. GB Lothian (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
per WP:NOTTHEM. After three of these hopeless requests, I think it's time you stopped using your talk page to waste administrators' time in the hope that one will naively agree with you. So I'm revoking your access to this page as well. You may continue to request unblock via OTRS, where nobody but you and the reviewing admins will get to see your histrionics. Or you can try squaring the circle, at which, I think, you will have the same likelihood of success as you would at getting unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2014 (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.
(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 you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editing? Now this is disruptive editing.[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_rail&action=history
As you can see instead of making China the country for MTR or add Region on the title, User:Ryulong has deleted the whole line for the East Rail line, regardless of the real-world fact. With the reason "Hong Kong is not a country".
Even funnier he wrote 1st revert in order to make the proper user User:BIL 3 reverts and attempt to have him banned. But he's the one vandalising. This is just taking things personally.