User talk:Lunchbox21

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to User talk:Adolphus79. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit appears to be part of a pattern of attack agsinst this user. Further continuation of the pattern may result in an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

-- Ed (Edgar181) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Lunchbox21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I blocked for good faith edits?

Decline reason:

Obvious sockpuppet, typical sockpuppet behavior, waste of time. Mango juice^talk 20:52, 15 July 2008 (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.

How do you explain this edit as good faith? —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He/she/it already did explain on one of his/her/its other socks here, or maybe it was the other sock, er, I mean user User:Learjetsuperkingairmechanic that explained it to me... I get confused with all this logging and chatting under three different usernames at the same time... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steph

Just swinging by to show ya some love and see if you were unblocked yet. Seem's like Chase is blocked too and they got a bunch of people labeled as sock puppets. Well, call me and we'll work on that T56 article. Peace. Texhausballa (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a Month

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).

Lunchbox21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, it's been almost a month since I was blocked and nothing bad has came from my user account nor my IP address. Can I please have my account unclocked now so I can continue my good faith edits?

Decline reason:

Due to abuse from this account, as well as the numerous sockpuppets linked, this request is decline. Yesterday, I emailed the abuse contact listed for the related IP addresses and no block will be lifted until I hear back (and the situation is resolved). - auburnpilot talk 16:02, 4 August 2008 (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 the mean time

Should I just sit and wait? What about other accounts linked as sock puppets? I've noticed a few. Let me check the list and I'll repost them. Thanks. Lunchbox21 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falsly Accused Sockpuppets

Here they are:

User:Renameeed3

User:Learjetsuperkingairmechanic

So, how can we fix this problem? Lunchbox21 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]