User talk:Shadowgcat3

NPA[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks against other users as you did here. Such comments are uncivil and have been reverted. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking me, as you did with the creation of User:Mythdon. Such remarks are uncivil, and repeating such actions can warrant blocks. Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wal-Mart, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 17 August 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).

Shadowgcat3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My roommate went on and vandalized. I'll change my password and he won't do it again.

Decline reason:

Per comments below and WP:GOTHACKED (Sorry for reviewing an unblock request where I was the blocking admin, but this is a pretty solid decline. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 17 August 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.

IN that case, this account should remain blocked, as it has been compromised.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that was your roommate. Taking a quick look at your contributions suggests otherwise. Your edits are vandalism, not productive edits. If you can't be productive here, please find something else to do. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as Daedalus969 suggests, since you claim that your account has been compromised, you've just justified another reason for you to remain blocked, not be unblocked. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Unjust Blocking!--

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).

Shadowgcat3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

They don't believe me, so give me one shot to prove I don't just vandalize, and if I make a vandalism edit, You can block me again with no problems. I realize I was vandalizing, and I'm sorry. I'll make better edits from now on.

Decline reason:

I don't think so. The grossness of your vandalizing doesn't indicate that you'd be in any way useful to the encyclopedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:55, 21 August 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.

--Please!!--

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).

Shadowgcat3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I Really want to be a good contributer! Give me one more chance! The rules say if i acknowledge what I did was wrong and promise not to do it again than i can have a chance!

Decline reason:

You vandalise, you get blocked, pure and simple. We have no reason to believe you won't immediately go back to vandalising after your block is lifted. Closedmouth (talk) 05:11, 21 August 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.

--Admin Please!-- {{adminhelp}} Hey Admin, I really need to be unblocked. I'm going to make good edits instead of vandalize. I realize my mistake and I want to make things right. Shadowgcat3 (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, to make sure I have things straight, you confirm, by saying that you won't vandalize, that you lied above when you told us your account was compromised? I suggest you answer this question.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i confirm. I lied above and i'm really sorry. I just want to edit well. I promise I won't do this anymore. Shadowgcat3 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shadowgcat333 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]