User talk:Fan-of-Pope

Feel free to leave me a message.

February 2010[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 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).

Fan-of-Pope (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did add sources to all informations I did post. Where did I abuse editing previleges?

Decline reason:

WP:SOCK FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:31, 9 February 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.

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).

Fan-of-Pope (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did add sources to all informations I did post. Where did I abuse editing previleges? Somebody did accuse me to be a sockpuppet but the investigation did not proof this. But I gave proof that I am not a sockpuppet: Since I consider Bishop Seiwert-Fleige to be a shismatic (in article !) which is the opposite than bischof-ralph wants to tell us (!) I cant be a sockpuppet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bischof-Ralph

Decline reason:

Your edits, which are of poor quality, are almost all dedicated to Alfred Seiwert-Fleige, much like those of Bischof-Ralph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 18:58, 9 February 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.

Note also the sock block on de. Sandstein 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]