User talk:GoldenQR

GoldenQR, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi GoldenQR! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me edit[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not know what happens to me! GoldenQR (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's all in your block log: WP:SOCK. Max Semenik (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

But I am not that sock! GoldenQR (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser results, coupled with similar editing interests, tells me that you are lying. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 6 September 2015 (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.

:Checkuser says Confirmed. Any blocks placed as a result of Checkuser results are generally very difficult, if not impossible, to contest. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several days ago, when I nominated Wubi 86 to delete, I found a very strange message on that page. It was removed later, I did not know what happened, I thought it a mistake. Then yesterady, after I left a talk on FSB, I was blocked. I do not know what happens! I was reported by Antigng, maybe I made its edit back to its last one on Super-WPS. But is that the reason I was blocked? GoldenQR (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask how to contest? GoldenQR (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

That is not worth lying at all! GoldenQR (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Couldn't agree more. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:08, 7 September 2015 (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.

I Am Innocent![edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Let us put the sock puppet aside, just see what I, this user account, edit on Wikipedia.org! Do I damage some items? Do disturb someone else before blocked on Wikipedia.org? So I am completely innocent! Similar, this would decrease the useful distributions onto Wikipedia.org! I have also to inform that this is the only Wikipedia.org, and administrators are not CIA agents, the only reasonable reason to block someone is only when he/she damages articles or preventing useful contributions onto Wikipedia.org. GoldenQR (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. In your next unblock request, I suggest you focus on this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2015 (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.

Wikipedia, all in all, runs on trust. Sockpuppetry is a very good way to lose that trust. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason is that the block towards user Janagewen is unfair and faith-losing of Wikipedia.org. This user just want to correct that misled table on .net framework, but attacks, attacks and attacks. Another correction on PAE and x86, what is gained is only attack! Wow, you could call a dog as a bigger mouse, but you could never turn a mouse into a dog for ever... GoldenQR (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"focus on this"[edit]

I have completely no ideas why the very first time I was blocked from editing on Wikipedia.org, because virtually, I wrote nothing at all. But I could understand why Wikipedia.org had been ever long banned by Germany and China Government, not only for its contents, but also for its ridiculous organisation policy. I greatly express my agreement on those bans! GoldenQR (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]