User talk:Romel kkb
- Romel kkb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 124.106.91.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple]] accounts
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Romel kkb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was listed as a suspected sock puppet of a certain joemerCAM which is untrue, you may check my IP, my IP is a static IP. I may have concurred with the view of JoemerCAM but it doesn't mean that we are the same person.
Decline reason:
The evidence strongly suggests that you are the same person. — FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
Romel kkb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
With due respect to you Miss FisherQueen, can you tell me the evidence or proof that proves that we are the same person? A Does concurrence to the point of view of another person prove that we are the same person? You are accusing me of something that is not true.
Decline reason:
No, just agreeing with someone else would not prove that you are the same person. I could explain the clear signs that you are the same person to you, but I'm afraid that you'd just be careful to avoid making the same mistakes with your next sockpuppet, so I'll ask you to look deeply within yourself and find the truth there, instead. -FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
Romel kkb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is my first account and I don't plan to put up sock puppets. If I plan to put up sock puppets, why would I waste time to ask that my account be unblocked? The blocking of my account resulted to my concurrence to joemerCAM's AFD due to malicious content/intent. As I've read that part of wikipedia's policy for Biographies of Living Persons is that it should be neutral as stated below: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The wikipedia entry for Eddie Villanueva failed to present a neutral point of view but rather, it was presented with bias. For instance, the estafa case that was included in the entry was sourced from Manila Standard Today was an opinion page FIRST CRACK of Fel Maragay (http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=editorial_oct15_2005). Opinions stated by an author does not necessarily mean it is the truth. There are other several entries in the wikipedia page that are half-truths. With this, I believe that it is part of the Administrators' responsibility to hear bring to light issues concerning this page since wikipedia is quoted by many in their researches.
Decline reason:
So you and joemerCAM both happened to create an account at the same time to contribute to an AFD from the same IP, yet you claim you are not related? Sure. Declined. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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.