User talk:New identity

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).

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

Request reason:

I want this block and the sockpuppet message removed because for one thing it is based on a blatant lie; "New identity" is not a sockpuppet of "El chulito"; I was told by a different Administrator that I had to change my username from "El chulito" as this has several meanings in Spanish, one of which is apparently offensive, which was never my intent. I advised all concerned of this, not that I was obligated to do so. I also want this blokc removed because it is ridiculously harsh and was not meted out to User:Vintagekits, whose history suggests that he merits an indefinite block, not I. Shortly after I received this ludicrous sockpuppet/block message, I was advised by another editor that I am allowed to go back to my old username, "El chulito". -- What is going on and what is my status!!??

Decline reason:

My understanding is that your old username is fine. It was questioned but decided to be okay. Please continue editing from that account. If you wish to switch to this account instead, please re-request an unblock. In the unlikely event that you are blocked from editing with your old account, request an unblock there (probably unblock-auto). I have removed the sockpuppet notice from this page; this sockpuppet is not abusive. -- Yamla 16:34, 30 January 2007 (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.

Thomas Begley 29 January 2007[edit]

Since you have changed you user name you have made edits to the above pages which are not what has been discussed on the talk page. Also your comments could be construed as being in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, if you as unsure way please familiarise yourself with there policies. Regards--Vintagekits 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking WP:3RR[edit]

Please be aware that you are in danger of breaking WP:3RR on a number of pages.--Vintagekits 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all needs a userpage[edit]

Steal mine, I don't care. But yuo need something. ~ Flame vip e r ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

I've just had a quick look at this situation and I've only got as far as your edit summaries, some of which are blatant and provocative personal attacks on User:Vintagekits, which must stop forthwith or they will be stopped by your being blocked. This is quite unacceptable. I don't want an explanation on my talk page thanks. I just want to see civility. If you can't do that, then don't edit the same articles as him. Tyrenius 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:New identity[edit]

If you would like your user-page deleted/turned back to a red-link, then place {{db-user}} and a admin will be by shortly to oblige. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong[edit]

er dude, it was decided you could keep your old username. pschemp | talk 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.[edit]

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. Show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. Leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you. --Vintagekits 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]