User talk:Kale Reeves

Hello, Kale Reeves. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your edits[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User: Nick Thorne. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

Your edits to May 3[edit]

Dear Kale Reeves,
Some of your edits on the page May 3 have been undone by PseudoBot, a robot built to keep the date pages tidy. The problems are:

The person you added doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page.

If the page exists, check that you've spelled and capitalized the name the same way as the article, and try again. If it doesn't yet exist, read this page carefully before creating it. In particular, you shouldn't create a page about yourself or anyone you know personally. If this bot has got it wrong (as can unfortunately happen), please accept its author's apologies, and (if you would like) leave a message on this talk page with the details, so it can be improved. Please see this page for help. PseudoBot (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Campbell reeves[edit]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Campbell reeves, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 06:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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. Closedmouth (talk) 06:58, 18 September 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).

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

Request reason:

i am new to Wikipedia and i was just having a joke page. Because i was new i didn't know that you could do this in sandbox. Now i know this i am not asking you to unblock this page i am just asking you to lift the ban

Decline reason:

It is possible that you did not understand the rules before your first warning, but since you ignored four warnings to stop, a block seems appropriate. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:44, 18 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am asking you again to please unblock me, my reason being that i am new to wiki and at the time i was not farmilliar to the layout and how it works. i did not sghn ee the warnings due to my lack of knowlage on wiki and when i saw the new message sign i ignored it notknowing what it was

Decline reason:

per below, it appears rather obvious that you created that new account while this one was blocked in order to continue to vandalize Wikipedia. The fact that that account immediately vandalized the same article you had been editing, an article which had not been edited for over a year before you started to edit it, appears to be compelling evidence that you are trying to dodge this block and be disruptive, even while I was trying to argue to have you unblocked. I find that rather an unwise move, and I can see no reason to unblock you now; I was prepared to unblock you, but your recent actions have made it clear that doing that would be entirely unwise. Good day sir. --Jayron32 15:36, 23 September 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.

Request on hold. Blocking admin contacted. Please await his response. --Jayron32 03:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There may be a chance that Justingudgeon (talk · contribs) is the same as Kale Reeves (talk · contribs). Both have put abusive messages connected to Flinders Ranges mogurnda e.g. here and User:Kale Reeves' talkpage - e.g. here and Nick Thorne (talk · contribs)'s userpage here. (The obsession with homosexuality and gudgeon is common to both).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:25, 23 September 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).

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

Request reason:

i ask you to plaese unblock me again, i am truly sorry for what i wrote about nick thorn and changing the page on gudgeons, i did not see the warnings due to my lack of knowlage on wiki and when i saw the new message sign i ignored it notknowing what it was. I can assure to you that i am deffinatly not justingedgeon i may be obsessed with gudgeons but definitly not homosexuality

Decline reason:

Per Jayron32 above ... arguing to be unblocked while it was apparent you were socking is not the way to convince us that you're acting in good faith. And to help you accept your block, this talk page is now disabled. Blueboy 96 02:55, 25 September 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.