User talk:Do Tuong Van

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).

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

Request reason:

I will not a suspected

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:40, 13 January 2021 (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.

December 2020[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at International Citystar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Evaders99 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a suspect please unblock my account. The block is not necessary by you because i want to edit pages but not disruptive editing or vandalism again.

Decline reason:

On 4 December 2020, Daivanco made this edit. They were blocked on 11 December, on 21 December this account was created, and on 25 December you made an identical change to Daivanco's edit. You also both made identical edits to Peugeot Landtrek, BRAND'S Essence Of Chicken, Opel Movano, SEAT Mii, and multiple other articles. The inescapable conclusion is that you are Daivanco evading their block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 12 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a suspect sockpuppet the block is not necessary to you. So please unblock my account because i want to edit pages on Wikipedia but not Vandalism again.

Decline reason:

Please see the last decline. Those reasons still stand as to why you aren't a 'suspected' sockpuppet, but an all but certain one. You'll need to address those and explain why you aren't before anything can even be started to be considered here. Please also read WP:GAB. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 15 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block is not necessary to you so please unblock my account

Decline reason:

As you fail to demonstrate sufficient competence to write an acceptable unblock request, I have revoked talk page access to stop you wasting any more of our time. Yamla (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2021 (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.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS 45031[edit]

UTRS appeal #45031 misuse of UTRS, recommended removal of access. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]