Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
archive |
||
Line 1:
{{Retired|date=21 August 2015}}
{{hidden archive top}}
{{talk archive}}
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I was aware of policy, reverts fall under [[WP:NOT3RR]], as suspected socks involved [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim]], subsequent reverts by friends/people called upon by sock included reverts of constructive edits. Once the reverting of constructive material stopped, no reverts done. Please see page <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Lebanon_War&action=history History]</span>. Discussion of 'contested' additions (initiated by sock) currently undergoing on talk page. I would like to appeal block, and in the worst case a simple 'topic ban', as all edits on this site constructive. Thank you[[User:Lr0^^k|495656778774 ]] ([[User talk:Lr0^^k#top|talk]]) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) | decline = Accusing others of sockpuppetry isn't really an excuse. If you believe that someone is a sock, discuss it on the talk page or bring it up at SPI. Offhand I notice that one of the accounts ([[User:Mikrobølgeovn]]) has been active since 2009 and while that doesn't mean that someone isn't a sock, it does make it less likely. You also need to take this into consideration: what if they aren't socks and aren't people getting their friends to revert your edits. What if it was just that you wrote something that might have been wrong? This is when you need to go discuss things on the talk page, not just start edit warring. I think that you should take this time to look over general editing guidelines. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)}}
:*You can blank most other things on your userpage but you cannot blank out any block/unblock posts. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 10:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
| |||