User talk:Tru3f4ct

April 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Social capitalism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; 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 for further information. Thank you. Fumitol (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my page.--Fumitol (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Steve Wakeman is a jerk (sometimes). You can quote me on that. The only question is as to its relevance in the social capitalism article, rather than on List of occasional jerks who are very sorry. Swakeman (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User talk:Fumitol. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Tommy (msg) 01:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion _(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text

{{unblock|Well, I'm going to assume I got blocked for what I put on a talk page, which is a talk page. If you look at the conversation it's pretty clear that I'm getting along with fumitol, and that in fact I was complimenting the guy on a TALK page. If this block is for creating erroneous pages, then I haven't created an erroneous page since my warning. So it's pretty uncool that I got blocked for any of this.}}

below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 01:56, 13 April 2010 (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).

Tru3f4ct (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, I'm going to assume I got blocked for what I put on a talk page, which is a talk page. If you look at the conversation it's pretty clear that I'm getting along with fumitol, and that in fact I was complimenting the guy on a TALK page. If this block is for creating erroneous pages, then I haven't created an erroneous page since my warning. So it's pretty uncool that I got blocked for any of this. Yeah, I did some stuff I thought was funny but was actually vandalism. It all happened over like 10 minutes and I know what the problem is now.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 03:05, 13 April 2010 (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.