User talk:Rboy 90

August 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Phil Mitchell has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Immersion (album). Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Phil Mitchell. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Citroën C2, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion _(talk) 23:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion _(talk) 23:24, 17 August 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).

Rboy 90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Um, excuse me but why was I blocked? I was trying to constructively edit a number of pages by including relevant information. Why has this been dubbed a vandalism only account?

Decline reason:

As noted below, your editing was designed to disrupt. That's vandalism. To claim that your edits were constructive is beyond disingenuous. Please consider your options carefully before posting another unblock request. Tiderolls 23:52, 17 August 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.

Would you prefer "disruptive editing" by repeatedly inserting inappropriate personal opinions after multiple warnings, then blanking a talkpage? Acroterion _(talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have to disagree that my edits were "inappropriate". There seems to be inconsistency on wikipedia as to what is a personal opinions. There are many other pages with similar things written Rboy 90 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you're banned Ln of x (talk · contribs), based on your edits. Acroterion _(talk) 23:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how you could think I am a sockpuppet, whatever that is. I only just made this account. What possible evidence is there that I am a sockpuppetRboy 90 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]