User talk:Messenger2010

Welcome.

Soybean editing[edit]

Hi, if a user is blatantly adding content which is not from a NPOV, consider adding the appropriate warning to their talk page. If they are not so blatant you may want to leave a custom message explaining the problem with the users edit.--Andeh 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soy Bean page[edit]

The vandalism summary is gone from the history now and the bug that caused that fixed. Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is content dispute and not vandalism. Please do not report content disputes on WP:AIV, it might mislead the administrators. If you think a user has breached WP:3RR report it on the appropriate page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Yankees76 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol[edit]

Sarcasam is so lameJohnpedia 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Something tells me you are not here to build a great encyclopaedia. You are now blocked indefinitely. To appeal this b lock use {{unblock}} on your talk page. Note that your past behaviour (including sockpuppetry) has influenced this decision, and your recent bogus warnings are also evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 6 January 2007 (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).

Messenger2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My warning were legitamte but you are entitled to your opinion. I was never told my warning were not legit. You should not block an editor just for issuing warnings. Request for unblock. --Messenger2010 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

On the contrary, your "warnings" could be seen as harassment to an extent + sock concerns-- Tawker 00:00, 7 January 2007 (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.