CurtMcArdle

Okay, it's clear from your talk page that you own betacross.tumblr.com. Your blog is not a reliable source. You do not have a team of people with editorial insight and that means you are not allowed to put a link to your blog on a high profile page like Empire of the Sun (band) just because you happened to review their song "Alive". Your claim here is misleading as I cannot find any mention of your blog online You are in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:RS. If you continue to use Wikipedia to advertise your blog you may be blocked.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your concern, but I would ask that in future you post comments below the contents, as per wikipedia rules. I'd have though you, of all people, would be pretty het up on that CurtMcArdle (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:CurtMcArdle

User:CurtMcArdle, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CurtMcArdle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CurtMcArdle during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Ryulong (琉竜) 14:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason you felt the need to completely revert my talk page to a state prior to when I moved everything from April to my archives?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I can't even tell what you restored and why.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate account blocked

I have blocked your alternate account. You may not edit using multiple accounts, especially to avoid the possible deletion of your user page. Please do not create another account to circumvent the MfD or you may find that all of your accounts will be blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Only, your block on Betacross has put a block on my IP, therefore ALREADY blocking all of my accounts. Thanks, man CurtMcArdle (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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

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

---

Request reason:

As written above, Gogo Dodo ban of Betacross has banned my IP adress, thus banning CurtMcArdle, despite the fact I have done nothing since his warning. Please amend this CurtMcArdle (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Presumably you mean that you were affected by an autoblock. If so, it would have helped to have followed the instructions you saw when you tried to edit, which would have told you to use {{Unblock-auto}}. However, don't worry, I have found the autoblock affecting this account, confirmed that it was caused by the block on your other account, and unblocked it, taking only a little more time and effort than if you had followed the instructions. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CurtMcArdle, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of multiple accounts for various purposes, including evasion of blocks on other accounts. Further considerations, adding to the case for a block, are use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes and harassment of another editor. You have been told how to request an unblock, and simply ignoring blocks and creating new accounts is not how to do it. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have already been given a warning for multiple account use, which I have acknowledged. My secondary account has been deleted. I have not created a new account since my warning, so this ban comes as somewhat of a surprise. What is the point in issuing a warning, then issuing a ban, despite the fact that the user has accepted the warning and followed instructions. Surely this defeats the object of a warning? Is anyone surprised that Ryulong is involved in this? CurtMcArdle (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Disingenuous and continues personal attacks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

1. I have removed the personal attack which you posted to this talk page while blocked, and removed your talk page access to prevent any similar abuse.
2. Making a personal attack on another editor while an unblock request is pending is scarcely likely to help your cause, especially considering that harassment of the same editor was given as a contributing factor in your block.
3. Your unblock request is disingenuous. You are fully aware that the warning you were given about use of multiple accounts was based on the belief that you had merely created one other account, and that one recently. You are also fully aware that you have in fact used a number of accounts over a period of over six years, at least two of which had already been blocked before you created this one. You are blocked for evasion of long-standing blocks, and the circumstances of later warnings given without knowledge of those long-standing blocks are irrelevant.
4. If you think there are good reasons for you to be unblocked, then you must address the reasons for all the blocks on all your accounts. However, your first account (or at least the earliest account that I know of) was blocked for making personal attacks, and now, six years later, you are making personal attacks. It therefore seems that the original reason or blocking you is still valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)