User talk:Charles669

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Charles669 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Peter Schonemann, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Chaser - T 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have been blocked for no apparent reason. It says vandalism, but I have not idea why this reason has been cited."

Decline reason: "This account did vandalise User talk:Edgar181, so it stays blocked. See also here. — Sandstein 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Look at your contributions. It's because of your edits to User talk:Edgar181. What was the point of these? Sandstein 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that --Charles669 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It may have been my brother who vandalized Edgar's page. Still, I do not see how an indefinite block is within reason. I have contributed very positively to Wikipedia in the short time that I have been an editor. I find it a matter of shame that random admins have authority to imposed blocks on constructive contributors. Perhaps you should investigate Edgar's contributions (?), because this is completely ridiculous. Who are you people??? --Charles669 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)