User talk:Tablas666

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).

Tablas666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

NawlinWiki has been making agenda driven edits again. Sure, I have a sordid history here on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make my points any less relevant. Look at the 13:48, 13 April 2010 edit to Bret Hart by myself, under the guise of Human ani. It was clearly a constructive edit, reverting to a supported version of this sentence, rather than a garbage version: the cite supports a comment by Vince McMahon, to whose name I reverted. NawlinWiki saw fit to revert to the nonsensical version "considered by most". Where's the support?!?!? The cite supports the sentiments of Vinc McMahon, not "most". Who cares about being unblocked (I'll just evade the block, as ever), but supposed "admins" making agenda driven edits and reverting to bullshit versions of articles just so they can "win" a feud is pathetic. Get a life. Tablas666 (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:50, 13 April 2010 (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).

Tablas666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK then, please unblock in order to correct the appalling edit by NawlinWiki. As a respected admin, you will see that this is a clear agenda-driven edit (as he has also made to Mike Tenay and Love of My Life (Queen song), before having no option but to accept his wrongdoings and allow the article to remain) must be reverted at once.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. GlassCobra 14:59, 13 April 2010 (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).

Tablas666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or *the block is no longer necessary because you **understand what you have been blocked for, **will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and **will make useful contributions instead." I sent an email to the Arb committee long ago for a chance at redemption and was ignored. I have vandalised, but I have also contrubuted a lot of great stuff here on Wikipedia. I have created a lot of articles which are still active today, and made a ton of constructive edits (not from this account). The only reason I vandalise today is because even when I up a constructive account, I get blocked anyway. I made a solemn vow to the Arb committee that I would never vandalise again, but I never heard anything so what's the point? Bret Hart has an appalling inaccuracy on it and I would like to fix it. I acknowledged the error of my ways long ago, so here were are again. I acknowledge the error of my ways. Tablas666 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's good that you acknowledge the error of your ways. But since you are still vandalizing the encyclopedia, I'm not willing to unblock you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (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.

Talk page access removed from this habitual abuser. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]