User talk:D climacus

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. 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

See this discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 09:52, 8 September 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please, Why is this happing to me? I don’t understand. I am not a sock puppet of EddieSegoura. Please review my block. I did absolutely nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

This edit gives us plenty of reason for this account to be blocked. Michael93555 is also blocked; being his/her sockpuppet is no better than being EddieSegoura's. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:52, 8 September 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Umm, No I am not a sock puppet of EddieSegoura . Please review my block. I did absolutely nothing wrong. Have a Check User Confirm this.

Decline reason:

Evidence is convincing. Closedmouth (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2009 (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.

Reviewing administrator, do not unblock without discussing the situation with me. Jehochman ^Talk 10:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Why is this happing to me? I don’t understand it.--David | ^Talk 10:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked because you are banned, have been playing games with us, and are not as clever as you think. If you want to edit, you have to stop evading your ban, and then after a reasonable length of time write to ArbCom and request a fresh start. Jehochman ^Talk 10:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not far. I am disported in Wikipedia,--David | ^Talk 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have been unbanned long ago if only you'd followed that advice. Start now and you'll be unbanned before you know it. Jehochman ^Talk 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to decline your unblock request but was beaten to it by Od Mishehu. You have been gaming wikipedia so whether you are Eddie (or now Michael93555 as you indicate here) you will not be unblocked at this time. I have also locked your page down from further comments by you - email me or another administrator if you wish to discuss further.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 10:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I've protected the page now you've had two unblock appeals and your last edit pretty much seals the deal that no one will want to unblock you. I had a quick look a Michael's account and I guess it's possible that you're also him, though that seems a bit unlikely to me as he seemed to have a different writing style, but I have no doubt at all that you're Eddie and your reaction and behaviour tonight has only convinced me even more. I think you're trying to blame another account that either isn't you or hasn't previously been identified as your sock because you know that this will come back to bite you when you (as Eddie) once again try to get your account Eddie Segoura unbanned. Either way, I don't see any point in you continuing to have access to this page because whether you're Michael, Eddie or both, you're not welcome to edit while you are under a block or ban. As you know, if you want to appeal you can take it up with the Arbitration Committee (you have their email address). Sarah 11:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Margaret Thatcher (1983-87). Since you had some involvement with the Margaret Thatcher (1983-87) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). PamD 13:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Zainuddin Makhdoom I requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://historicalleys.blogspot.com/2010/03/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. asilvering (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]