User talk:The Phat Cow

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of FootballPhil (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Aren't you starting to feel like you're wasting your time a bit? You aren't going to be able to make the changes you want, no matter how many accounts you use. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help encourage you to stop, I've reverted all of your edits- didn't even look at them. Because you're blocked, and I don't want you to get the idea that creating new accounts is a good way to edit. Expect me to do the same thing for your next account as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of Football Phil! I have no idea who the heck he is! Yes I created TCWTMB, but that account has been blocked, so I made this one. With this account, I have not edit-warred, made un-useful contributions, or deleted relevant information. I have behaved. I have also created the article 'African Groove (Album)', which is a good contribution to Wikipedia. I had planned to make more Articles about the Putumayo collection. On articles regarding Cornwall, all I did was add one section to the talk page - People are encouraged to do this! I have done nothing wrong - go ahead, try to find something, I guarantee you will not.

Decline reason:

As you plainly admit to being a sock, make your request from your original account. Smashville^talk 22:27, 1 February 2010 (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.

Like User:The cows want their milk back, you've been making the same kinds of nationalist edits. If you'd wanted to just write about music, probably no one would have noticed or cared, but once you started pushing your point of view in Cornwall-related articles, it was obvious that you were avoiding your block on your previous account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smashville, his prior account's talk page is locked, because he was making excessive unblock requests that didn't address the reason for his block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually FQ, I addressed the reason(s) for my block in the unblock requests - all of them. Also, I did not make nationalist edits. I added one section to the talk page on the Cornwall article and Changed 'highest mountain in England and Wales' to 'highest mountain in Wales' on the mountain article, which is perfectly justifiable. The Phat Cow (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of Football Phil! I have no idea who the heck he is! Yes I created TCWTMB, but that account has been blocked, so I made this one. With this account, I have not edit-warred, made un-useful contributions, or deleted relevant information. I have behaved. I have also created the article 'African Groove (Album)', which is a good contribution to Wikipedia. I had planned to make more Articles about the Putumayo collection. On articles regarding Cornwall, all I did was add one section to the talk page - People are encouraged to do this! I have done nothing wrong - go ahead, try to find something, I guarantee you will not. -I have been blocked from editing TCWTMB's User page, for reasons unknown. And I am not a sock, I made this account after the previous one was blocked

Decline reason:

Then email ArbCom. Don't evade your block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 03:50, 2 February 2010 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

Before anything else, can you please remove the thing at the top of this page which says I am a sockpuppet of FootballPhil, as this is not true. The reasons for this request can be found in the request above. As for the decline reason, who is Arbcom?

Decline reason:

See WP:ARBCOM. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I have not made any disruptive constibutions, check my contributions if u must, and I am not a sockpuppet of Football Phil, that is a complete lie and cannot be used to keep me blocked.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of blocked user. I also blocked two more of your abusive accounts; please stop. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:36, 6 February 2010 (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.