User talk:Need1521

March 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dmitry Medvedev, you may be blocked from editing. Valenciano (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Valenciano. Eye snore (pc) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for edit warring using this account and several different IPs, disruptive editing, and WP:BLP violations. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 21 March 2014 (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).

Need1521 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

It is very difficult to understand your unblock request, because, although it uses English words, they are not combined to make English sentences. However, as far as I can make out, you are saying that you were right to use Wikipedia as you did, which was to try to promote a point of view, to edit war to keep that point of view in. Unfortunately, all that is against Wikipedia policy, and as long as it seems likely that you will continue to do the same, you are unlikely to be unblocked. You are also unlikely to be unblocked as long as you continue to evade the block by editing without logging in. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2014 (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.

To the reviewing admin: Need1521 posted the above unblock request on my page, using an IP, because they have trouble understanding instructions. Presumably a language issue. I don't suppose they understood the guide to appealing blocks very well either. Anyway, it's a little unusual, but there you are, it's the user's unblock request, at least I think so. For background, see the ANI thread. I've linked to an earlier version, where their IP disruption while blocked can be seen, before I removed it. WP:CIR is certainly in play here, IMO. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 24 March 2014 (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).

Need1521 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for violations of the rules, and I ask unblock me. Now I know the rules better. To be free of violations. Need1521 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Now using IP addresses to make legal threats against the blocking admin. Per the policy against legal threats, this account must stay blocked until the threats are retracted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 26 March 2014 (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.

Need1521 You don't get to remove previous unblock requests and comments you don't like. Such behavior will significantly reduce the chance of an unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It turns out the first "unblock request" above, that I added to the page, wasn't intended as an unblock request after all, so I've removed it. Please do not restore. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Req

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).

Need1521 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am from organization vs any crimes. Former military of the Ministry of Defense of the US asked me to give the truth about troubles with human rights in Russia (bloody holiday). What mechanism are used in this "System" - I do not know (secrecy). Exists reason (100%) to think that this is related with the partnership of Wikipedia + the US government: http://www.archives.gov/citizen-archivist/edit/#wikip.. (edit Wikipedia). I am simple man (who hates mass murderers - Bolsheviks and communists in any countries). Hate to millions of victims from the past - is worse of any murder in modern time. This is not hate (disrespect). To drink vodka in this day and be happy ..... (stupidity and not only). Need1521 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but this request is simply not understandable. At all. I know that there is a language problem here, and you evidently are using Google translate (yes?), but it is not working. If there is another unblock request that cannot be understood, then I am going to remove talk page access. Also, not only are you going to have to agree to stop the behavior that caused your block, but you are also going to need to promise not to make ridiculous threats about visits from "the US police", and stop editing while logged off to evade your block, BEFORE anyone will unblock this account. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Valenciano (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]