User talk:Distributor108

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 120 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Unblock discussion

(Regarding the archiving, I can turn on autoarchiving if you like, via a bot that just archives things after a certain amount of time; I set my page to about 8-10 days, but you can probably set yours longer since your talk is not as active).

So I think there's an way to start and see if an unblock is possible: what was wrong with your last edit ([1])? How was that tone inappropriate? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank you, Please set it to 4 months please.

I would prefer if we start with evidence which is from prior to my block. However with this diff, everything was true expect for the word 'false', however I see that you have removed the Admin names that blocked me instead of the word 'false', can you tell me why you did this? Also with regards to the use of the word false, I belive that is correct, because the post is signed by me, and It is a true reflection of my opinion. Distributor108 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2012 (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).

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I'm requesting temporary unblock to allow me to more effectively communicate with necessary admins on their talk pages et.c in order to formulate a condition for my unblock. I promise not to edit any Wikipedia article pages if and until those condition are met.

Decline reason:

RIGHT HERE on your talkpage is where the conditions for unblock will be discussed; period. First: read WP:GAB. Follow the steps. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 20 April 2012 (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.

Distributor, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "you have removed the Admin names that blocked me". I didn't change anything about your statement. The reason Boing's name doesn't show up is that you didn't format the pipe correctly (possibly just a typo, something erased on mistake).

But, assuming that was just a typo, I'll move on. I recommend you not make any more unblock requests; since I think the odds are very very unlikely that anyone is going to block you before this discussion reaches fruition, making more unblock requests will only aggravate other admins, and may even lead to your talk page privileges being revoked. If at any point you think that this conversation is pointless, then you can just decide to stop it and make whatever unblock requests you like and take the relevant consequences. Note that the same goes for me as well: if I don't think you're heading in the right direction, I'll also let this go.

Now, back to the discussion. I'm willing to, as you propose, "start with the evidence from prior to my block rather than my initial question. Generally speaking (we don't need to worry about specific diffs yet), what type of "evidence from prior to your block" do you want to examine? Are there some actions which you took that you think were particularly problematic? Are there specific things you did that you now think you should have done differently? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what I am after, show some specific diffs that lead to my block. Then show me how I could have otherwise responded differently the correct way. I'm trying as best as I can to understand what you are telling me, but you have to first show me what I did wrong specifically. Distributor108 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the number of reverts you made on Sri Lanka on April 15 and 16. Look also at your edit summaries. Please review WP:EW and WP:VANDAL, and let me know what you see as being wrong there. We'll deal with talk page issues later. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never committed WP:VANDAL on the Sri lanka article, the changes I made were what I believed were legitimate changed back up by verifiable sources. I may along with some other editors violated the 3RR, however this does not justify the handed sentence. Distributor108 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that you did not commit vandalism...but you called two good faith edits vandalism (see edit summaries on [2] and [3]). That's a problem. Regarding reverts, SriSuren hit 4 reverts, but you hit 6 reverts, and no one else crossed three. This is just after, the day before, when you had edit warred against a well-established consensus (that I had to revert you on). Basically, every single time you make a change to the article, before you discuss it, you start edit warring. Then, either simultaneous with that discussion or after it, you finally get around to discussing, but you keep reverting at the same time. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that Wikipedia policy requires facts to be verified before they are added, hence having Tamil as an official language is an 'addition', We have a reliable source to prove that Tamil is not an official language, we also have a source to prove that it is. Hence whether Tamil is an official language is at dispute, then the most appropriate action would be to leave it out until the dispute is settled. do you agree? Distributor108 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. The correct choice is to not edit war. The default state should always be the article prior to the dispute (except in cases of vandalism or potential BLP violations or other extreme POV concerns), which here would be "Tamil" being included (it had been in the article for what looks like a long time, not a recent addition). So, you haven't addressed the use of the word "vandal" yet, and you haven't addressed the edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have address the word of vandal in my previous edit, if this not what you are after what exactly do you want me to address? Can you define what is a long time? would a few months be considered a long time? I admit that I and another editor had violated the 3RR, and we were both subsequently issued warnings, to which I adhered. Distributor108 (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained why you called two good faith edits vandalism (see links above). And while you followed the 3RR warning, your message on 13:10 22 April shows that you have not understood the underlying message about edit warring. You seem to still be insisting that as long as you hadn't broken 3RR, your edit warring was acceptable. In fact, what I see here is that your only goal is to return to editing, while admitting to as little as possible. It doesn't feel to me like you have any interest in improving your behavior, or even attempting to figure out what you did wrong. And we haven't even got to the bigger issues of your tendentiousness on talk pages. Frankly, I'm not sure that this is worth the effort on my part, because if you are unwilling to consider that you may have been profoundly wrong (such that a clear consensus emerged on ANI that your behavior was disruptive) I don't see a clear path forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to find what I actually did wrong, otherwise I would not be talking to you, would I? Regarding those to edits, the reason I marked them as vandalism was because I had provided a legitimate source to dispute its inclusion, and I previously removed the content in accordance to Wikipedia policy, if the inclusion of some content is at dispute then the content should be excluded until the dispute is resolved. I had explained that the inclusion of Tamil as an official language is contested, and therefore it has been removed and to not include it until the matter is discussed. As the other editor refused to participate in any discussion and continuously kept adding Tamil as an official language, i had presumed it to be an attempt at vanderlism. If this presumption is not true, then I admit that my allegation was unfounded. Distributor108 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what vandalism is - please read WP:VANDAL. What you were involved in was a content dispute.

Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.

A disagreement about what the content of a page should be for which their are conflicting sources is NEVER vandalism. In the example you give, if there is conflicting authority their should be 3rd party sources that document that conflict. The disagreement (if it is notable) should be included in the text of the article. However, the danger I see here is that there is a possibility of original research since all I've seen is that source A says this and source B says this and your efforts to remove Tamil appear to be a synthesis of primary material. If Tamil was the official language and now it is not, the change should be documented (by news coverage of the event). A government produced document that leaves Tamil off the list of official languages may not meet the reliable sources standard. It appears from my brief review, that there is sufficient 3rd party sources that Tamil is an official language including independent coverage of the decision to include Tamil. If it has been removed, I would expect there to be similar reliable sources documenting the change. The way Wikipedia works, if there isn't 3rd party sources that document the change/fact, then it doesn't matter if it is true. In other words, even if it is true that Tamil is no longer an official language, if it can't be independently verified and documented (and not by a primary source that is biased and disputed by independent sources), then it will be difficult to reach consensus to include the material (at best the dispute could be noted in the text but not removed from the infobox - but even noting it in the text could have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues as described above). --Trödel 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one providing an independent 3rd party source, it is the other editor who seems to rely on a government sourceDistributor108 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with your 08:38 edit, you have just demonstrated complete WP:IDHT behavior. Despite the fact that I've already linked to WP:VANDAL and already told you it was wrong, you're still calling the edits vandalism. Despite the fact that I already told you that the idea that "if the inclusion of some content is at dispute then the content should be excluded until the dispute is resolved" is not policy, you're still saying it's appropriate Wikipedia behavior. You're exhibiting all of the same problems that got you blocked. And we haven't even got to the bigger problems yet. I don't think there's anything I can do here. Feel free to request another unblock, though you really out to read WP:GAB first along with the policies that lead to the block. But I sincerely doubt that anyone will be willing to unblock you, so you're probably better off trying to take advantage of our WP:STANDARDOFFER--go contribute on some other Wikimedia project for several months, prove you actually know how to follow the rules, and come back here in 6 months before asking for an unblock. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this line If this presumption is not true, then I admit that my allegation was unfounded. mean nothing to you? Distributor108 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This last comment is unhelpful - as to your comment to my remarks - try scanning through this all I see is evidence that Tamil is an official language with some accusations that it is in name only. --Trödel 13:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel I suggest your read up on WP Verifiability and reliable source policy. As you seem to be misguided as you attempting to associate blogs and forums as reliable source. Distributor108 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link & this one for full archives inlcuding articles by Bloomberg, etc. I apologize that when I pasted the link above, it didn't keep the restrictions to news sources only. --Trödel 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your link, here are some quotes from the sources your link provides. "that formally enshrined Buddhism as the state religion and Sinhala as the only official language." "changing the official language from English to Sinhala and alienating the Tamil" and only once source seems to claim tamil as a national language, "National Languages of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala and Tamil. A Member of Parliament or a member of a Provincial Council or a local authority" which is also supported by the independent source I provided. [The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)] I quote Sinhala (official and national language) 74%, Tamil (national language) 18%, other 8% Distributor108 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, if you wish to discuss the content issue, please do so at Talk:Sri Lanka--Distributor108 is blocked, and can not be participating in content discussions. At this point, Distributor108, you can use this page to request an unblock, and that's about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I admit to combative editing, and I would like to 2nd chance. Distributor108 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate and probably indefinite reblock. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what was wrong before and how are you going to avoid such problems in the future? I see 2 days ago you didn't understand it. Max Semenik (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly my combative attitude and tendentious editing style. I will avoid such problems in the future by not engaging in edit wars, even If i believe the other party to be in wrong, instead making discussion on the talk page, and if the other editor is wrong, to pursue appropriate dispute resolution process without getting engaged in an edit war.Distributor108 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate reblock * Agreed - Signed Distributor108 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another block

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).

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I seemed to be under another block, for an IP edit, could you please look into this as I have not edited from any account besides this. If there HAS been edits, please assess behavioral patterns, editing styles and interests. Also I'd like to know what edits has taken place. Distributor108 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The IP address has already been unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2012 (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.

Hi. I don't see any autoblocks or anything like that - can you please tell us the actual message you get when you try to edit? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from 114.76.220.19 has been blocked (disabled) by MuZemike for the following reason(s)......This block has been set to expire: 23:53, 16 July 2012.

CheckUser evidence has determined that the IP address or network of your account has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not currently have a account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. Please use this form to request an account under your preferred username. Additionally, if you wish to request unblock, please submit that request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): If you already have an account in good standing, please follow these instructions. You may also request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not amend or remove this block without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Distributor108 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand sometimes these things take a few minutes or more to 'wear off'. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That address was blocked by User:MuZemike a few hours after Distributor108 was blocked, and judging by the discussion at Talk:Sri Lanka#Wording of economy section, it was you using it - you asked a question as Distributor108, then responded to the reply from the IP. So it looks like you just edited while logged out, and as you did not edit from that IP while your Distributor108 account was blocked, I would think it can be unblocked. However, it was a Checkuser block, so I'll need to contact the blocking admin and see what he says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing, I am glad we have smart people like you around. Now, when you're done with this, can you fix the leak in the upstairs bathroom? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, sorry, you'll have to get Chuck Norris to do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove the unnecessary off topic comments from my talk pages. Thanks! Distributor108 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're unblocked now, so you can remove whatever you want yourself - the whole pageful if you so desire. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Thanks, I'll keep it for future reference, if I need it as evidence Distributor108 (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence for what? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sure, that's entirely up to you. But just for information, even if you remove it from the current version of the page, it will always remain in the page history and so will not be lost for future evidence should it be needed - if you click the History tab at the top, you can look at any past version of the page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Distributor wants to keep it as evidence to use against me at the same time that he's asking me to remove it. See a rather silly "discussion" on my talk page at "unnecessary comments". Drmies (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see if you were able to correct your immaturity, when I pointed it out to you. This can also be taken as evidence, as you still haven't removed it. It goes in as evidence either way, when your sysops goes up for review. Distributor108 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got a similar request at my Talk page too about "unnecessary comments". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG seriously. Reblock already - can't say "thanks", and didn't deserve to be unblocked anyway. WP:CLUE applies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Forgive the brief interjection ... Distributor108, I'm working on setting up your archiving for you using MiszaBot. Should be setup shortly and will run at some point later today, but usually not immediately (or soon). Ravensfire (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the archiving is setup to grab anything that's older than 120 days and archive it. I went ahead and marked your Welcome message with a Do Not Archive template in case you want to keep that one around as a nice marker, but just revert that edit to archive it if you want. If there are any problems, or the archive doesn't get as much as you'd like, just post here and I'll move it over for you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for that Ravensfire Distributor108 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing, as I was trying to archive, I must have did something to cause me not be able to edit individual sections on my talk page. How can I fix this?Distributor108 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that too. I'm not totally sure. It may be from the hatting, but it looks like you did that right. I'm hoping that the archiving will fix it. I did a WP search on help pages and there was something from 2010 that mentioned transcluded templates that used the no edit section magic word (not reproducing it here, obviously!). That might be the issue as well. There was also a section that started with a colon which is unusual, so I removed that, just in case. I'll check on it tomorrow after the archiving. Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bah - the no edit section magic word was the problem. Noticed it was I was looking through the page - you had added the talk page archive template which is normally only used for archives, where you don't want the new section or edit section links. I've removed that with this edit and things should be back to normal. Ravensfire (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that didn't do it. Grrr. Okay, I'll look at it tomorrow, hoping that the archiving helps. I'm assuming that everything currently hatted you'd like archived, even if the bot doesn't grab it? Any other sections? Ravensfire (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you moved that collapsed section into an archive it help the clarity of the talk page, I cant do this due to my block. And thanks for your assistance with my talk page. Distributor108 (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the problem was the {{talk archive}} template. That made the system think this was itself an archive, which is what was suppressing the section editing. Miszabot will automatically archive the old stuff (you can set the time to whatever you like). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts - I thought I'd removed that. Sorry 'bout that, didn't have the time to really check into that, but glad it got taken care of. I've gone ahead and manually archived everything that was hatted to the Archive 1 talk page. Take a look at {{Archive box}} for some templates you can add to this page to make navigating to your archives easy.

Where is my Archive? Distributor108 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)][reply]

It's at User talk:Distributor108/Archive 1. I've tweaked the archive box to UserTalkArchiveBox and set the auto=yes parameters so it will show the archive links. If you don't like the collapsed look, just change the template to ArchiveBox. Ravensfire (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your contribution Distributor108 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the exact opposite of teamwork, and you go ahead and grant yourself a teamwork award? You don't give yourself an award - they're earned (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block, part 2

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for doing the same thing you did before: displaying an unacceptable combative attitude, specifically here, a warning for Mariahmorton and here, a warning for RachellCaron. There is no way in which you can call these edits by RachellCarron and these edits by Mariahmorton vandalism. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a note on WP:ANI asking other editors to consider my indefinite block on this account. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted this block here (haven't looked at ANI), and did a quick review anyway, and I fully support this block. Distributor108 has given completely inappropriate warnings to those two editors for edits that could not remotely be described as vandalism, 2 days after their edits. It's basically an abusive use of the warning templates to try to win a content dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Distributor108's RfA attempt and the recent Arb request, coupled with all of the above, betrays a very clear battlefield agenda -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2012 (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).

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I did not describe it as vanderlism, I used the disruptive editing template. The reasons fro describing it as disruptive editing, was due to the fact that there had previously been a consensus regarding what content to put in the history section with due weight, both editors completely went against this consensus, and did not even bother to instigate any form of discussion on the talk page prior to the edits. Please note that all the edits from those users were removed by another editor, such that my judgement wasn't wrong [4]. Distributor108 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review, please is unanimous in support of block. And we don't want people here who harass other editors off-wiki, like this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (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.

Please tell me how this is harassment? I was bring to the attention of the owner of the computer, content the users were using it for. Simply bring the truth out isn't harassment. Distributor108 (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't see that your behaviour is unacceptable just adds to the evidence that your battlefield approach to Wikipedia is not going to change. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2012 (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).

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I understand that I should not have used disruptive editing warnings onto a two new users, also I should not have mixed real life with Wikipedia. I pledge not to this again Distributor108 (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said that last time. WP:OFFER may apply. Until a minimum of November 1, do not return to Wikipedia - either anonymously, nor through an account. Go be fruitful on another Wikimedia project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 1 May 2012 (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 block is unjustified. Distributor108 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. The community clearly feels that the block is justified. Email an admin when you believe you can satisfy WP:OFFER, or appeal to WP:BASC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]