User talk:Von1235

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Kci357 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (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).

Von1235 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I do not know why I am being accused of this. I was merely browsing an article, saw a dubious statement and saw that that statement had been previously removed for what appeared to be a good reason. I asked why that statement had been put back into place. I don't understand how I can be accused of being a sock puppet for this. Are you going to accuse everyone for being a sock puppet if they accidentally support a banned users edit? Von1235 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of blocked user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:44, 16 August 2011 (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).

Von1235 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am under a shared IP, I should not be punished for what someone else did. Von1235 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've taken a look at the data, and your explanation doesn't fit. Confirmed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:52, 16 August 2011 (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).

Von1235 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what about it doesn't makes its, this is the kind of typical nonsense I would expect from Wikipedia.none of your policies make sense. For example conduct Pvc article there is an edit that is not supported by the reference that was attached to it that edit was reverted despite being of vandalism at it because it's references do not support that statement. For unknown reasons that was reverted without explanation and you banned me for wondering why vandalism was reinstated to the article. Clearly you are driving away any errors that are trying to make constructive edits and encouraging vandalism.Von1235 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No indication that the user understands the reason for the block. No indication that the behavior that lead to the block will not continue, or that the reason for the block has been obviated by a change in circumstances. Talk page access revoked due to abuse of unblock requests. causa sui (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2011 (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.

If it was vandalism then that paragraph would have been deleted long ago, in fact that data was added way back in June 2006 into uPVC and later merged into Polyvinyl chloride, since then link rot set in, and subtle tiding by other editors has slightly altered the placement of the refs - the original page can be seen at [[1]] - thus refs 6 and 7 make more sense in those positions.