User talk:Armitage 007

Please look[edit]

The sword-billed hummingbird (Ensifera ensifera) is a neotropical species of hummingbird from the Andean regions of South America. Among the largest species of hummingbird, it is characterized by its unusually long beak, being the only bird to have a beak longer than the rest of its body, excluding the tail. It uses this to drink nectar from flowers with long corollas and has coevolved with the plant Passiflora mixta. While most hummingbirds preen using their beaks, the sword-billed hummingbird uses its feet to scratch and preen due to its beak being so long.Photograph credit: Andy Morffew

Archive – More featured pictures...

PGP (0x854AC54D440C7611)
Recall

Speedy deletion nomination of Ken Carke[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ken Carke requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 14 February 2018 (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).

Armitage 007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not a confirmed sp, blocked before confirmation, which is in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry that admin should be banned, NeilN.

Decline reason:

Block was completely valid. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2018 (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.

February 2018[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I don't simply revoke TPA when I block one of these socks as its always the same useless block appeals. I'll start doing that from now on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]