User talk:Nr9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of 136.152.170.134.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log.

Welcome!

Hello, Nr9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fuhghettaboutit 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What is up with the sockpuppet business? Nr9 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Your edits on Taipei_American_School are strikingly similar in both form and comment to User:Odmk69 and User:136.152.170.134, both of which begin active editing only after a sprotect. Someone will have to use checkuser to figure it out. Wikibofh(talk) 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a legitimate wikipedia user. Odmk69 is my roomate. I don't know who 136.152.170.134 are Nr9 04:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to September 11, 2001 attacks, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scott Grayban 10:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing. Note that most articles have been careful not to call Al qaeda or bin laden "terrorists" since that term is not NPOV. It is bettter to call 911 coordinated attacks instead of coordinated terrorist attacks and to call al qaeda a islamic fundamendalist group instead of an islamic terorrist organization Nr9 10:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is vandalizing when you change the facts of a article to fit your needs. If you want to dispute the article do it the correct way. You can't remove facts and simply say its not your way of thinking and think its still correct. --Scott Grayban 11:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling something with a negative connotation such as terrorism is clearly not NPOV. Its the same thing as if the article was "The September 11 attacks were a crusade against american imperialism." It is NPOV to just call it "attacks."

I believe i am blocked incorrectly

Unblock denied, you were warned, the time to discuss the issues was when you were first warned, not continue until blocked. Regarding some of your other ideas regarding what the NPOV policy actually means please see WP:WEASEL. --pgk(talk) 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I stopped when i was warned.
Wrong gain. I had to revert twice in a row with you. Then you argued with me about the NPOV issue. The history shows that. When a RC Patroler reverts a change its for a reason. What you should have done after I reverted it was ask me why and I would have told you to make your case the proper way. Instead you wanted to hammer in that you were right by reverting my first rv and me having to go back and rv again. One day I am sure you will learn that you can not force your own thoughts as being the only one valid here. --Scott Grayban 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know you are a RV patroler. I dont know that much about wikipedia. I thought you were just some random guy deleting my changes, which i didn't think were controversial at all (i thought they were matter of fact corrections.) I reverted before you sent me a warning message and after that i stopped editing the main page. Nr9 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well the issue of the socketpuppet has to be dealt with still and that is up to a admin here. But the next time a revert was made by anyone and not just a RC Patroler here ask first on the talk page. You are more then welcomed to disagree or think that something should be changed if everyone working on that article agree or the majority do. As far as the reverting issue I have no problems with him being unblocked now. I hope he has learned a lesson on that. --Scott Grayban 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry i did not knkow wikipedia protocol, i will not do that in the future. As for sock puppetry, I am not a sock puppet Nr9 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have asked another admin to look at the socketpuppet issue again. I'll see about getting a faster review on it. --Scott Grayban 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the block log and it seems that User:Curps has blocked you indefinite for constant abuse. I'm pretty sure only he can unblock you. Sorry but I don't think there is much I can do here now. Good luck --Scott Grayban 22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
How do i contact him? Nr9 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Go to his userspace and choose in the toolbox email this user --Scott Grayban 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think i emailed him a long time agao but he never responded Nr9 06:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Its the best I can do. Try finding another admin then. --Scott Grayban 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I too can't really do anything at the moment, however I will leave Curps a message as well. 23skidoo 19:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|I am not a sockpuppet and I was banned incorrectly.>>

<<unblock|I am no longer on the noticeboard, what consensus was reached? i am not a sock puppet..>>

  • I've contacted Redvers for comment or help looking into this. In the meantime, please bear with us. Thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 09:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

It's been around six months since your original block; while I can see some rationale behind your original block, I also believe it's been a long time, and per the assumption of good faith, I'd like to give you a second chance. Use it wisely, eh? ;)

Request handled by: Luna Santin 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/r/9/User_talk%7ENr9_b83e.html"