Dr Nat

[[1]] HOW COMES THAT USER IS ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!?

Please don't add copyright violation notices just for purposes of posting your Guitar Hero video link to YouTube. The copyright violation notice is intended to indicate an actual problem with the article, not to call blatant attention to your video. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you post another link to the video again, I will block you for spamming and trolling. You have exhausted my patience. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted your userpage. Are you here to write an encylopedia or to spam us? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dr. Nat

A tag has been placed on Dr. Nat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dekisugi (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Dr. Nat

A tag has been placed on Dr. Nat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dr. Nat. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Dekisugi (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to do here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a database of everything it is an encylopedia. Why do you want to be unblocked? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So I can learn the rules and edit nicely. Dr Nat (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I will unblock you. But no more linking to a silly youtube video. Give me a minute. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you have any problems editing. Sometimes the autoblocker kicks in unexpectedly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Try it now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Third opinion

He may be the sock puppet of the user you are mentioning, but you can't revert his edits because he isn't yet confirmed to be a sockpuppet. If you want to report him a sockpuppet, please report him at WP:SSP, and please don't revert his edits(which seems to be constructive) until he is confirmed to be a sock. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a geordie is, or whether it's a good or a bad thing to be labelled as one. But I do know that getting outside opinions in a dispute is usually a good thing, while getting involved in an edit-war on a page that is watchlisted by enormous numbers of admins is a bad thing. Why not just let some outside opinions weigh in? It might result in reaching some consensus on the article, and that would be good for everybody. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)

The case you are referring to is still unresolved. Let the case to be completed first. --SMS ^Talk 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Be patient! and let the case to be resolved, you can even report this issue at WP:ANI, so admins can have a look at it. I think if you are right AND he is also confirmed to be a sock then he will be blocked soon! --SMS ^Talk 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but that way here to check that if a user is a sock is to compare the ips of the user suspected to be socks. And your report at WP:AIV is not entertained because i don't think it is vandalism. I again recommend you to report it at WP:ANI. --SMS ^Talk 21:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Molag Bal (2) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that this user has just moved the entire case page to Greggs the Baker. MickMacNee (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving the sockpuppetry case file, removing all the information about you on it, and then blanking the notice from your talk page is extremely disruptive, and also strengthens the case against you. Because such disruptive editing is harmful to the encyclopedia, I have blocked you for 31 hours, enough time, I hope, for the sockpuppetry investigation to occur. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Unfair block, I was fighting sockpuppetry and an ongoing dispute.

Decline reason:

Moving the page and tampering with evidence was patently disruptive. Since you admit that it was deliberate, there is no reason to undo the block. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (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.

I wouldn't have blocked you, despite the accusation of sockpuppetry, if you hadn't been trying to disrupt the investigation. But how could I do anything else? Blocking you was the best way I could think of to make sure the investigation proceeds, and if it doesn't, you won't have the opportunity to clear your name. You do want the opportunity to clear your name, I assume? If you're innocent, there's no reason for you to avoid an investigation or a checkuser. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was fighting sockpuppetry myself, and I was being goodfaith, I am not Molag Bal as there is no evidence on that SSP case, but it seems to be that anyone who disagrees with "Gregs" and "Mick" on that dispute are a sock, that is unfair. Dr Nat (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock me and I will leave the investigation alone. Dr Nat (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that you had moved the investigation a second time until another user pointed it out to me. It is corrected now. That you moved it even after I had corrected it makes me even less confident that you will be able to resist further disruptive edits, so no, I don't feel confident that unblocking you would be wise. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are Molag Bal. Sunderland06  01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on what, considering you presented the evidence against a Molag Bal opponent here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker? MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Molag Bal (2).

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Black Kite 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

.