Fredd7271

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).

Fredd7271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption and violates the blocking policy. A look at my history will show that I have made substantial contributions to a few articles and the only edit that's been criticized is the one TravisTX had decided to take such umbrage with. For what it's worth, here is a recap of what transpired: I made an edit, one person didn't like it, accused me of having sockpuppet accounts, when I told him he was wrong another editor (suspected sockpuppet) put me on final warning, when I deleted those edits the original editor aplied a block. Apparently this johutton guy has made false accusations of vandalism before that have been proven later to be errors. He apparently got called out by this travis character on one and ever since is doing Travis' dirty work by warning/blocking people who disagree w/ him. I'm not unconvinced johutton is a sockpupper of TravisTX

Decline reason:

1) Your first premise is wrong. This block is preventing personal attacks such as the one you make here: [1] and thus seems valid. As you continue your personal attacks with your rediculous claims about sockpuppetry between two long established users, a patently untrue claim, the block seems to be justified by your behavior since it. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:16, 1 May 2009 (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.

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).

Fredd7271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption and violates the blocking policy. The Wikipedia:Blocking_policy states, Blocks "are not intended for use in retaliation or as punishment." This block was applied by TravixTX in retaliation to a remark I made in response to his warning. It was a retaliatory action and an abuse of his status as an administrator. A look at my history will show that I have made substantial contributions to a few articles and the only edit that's been criticized is the one TravisTX had decided to take such umbrage with. For what it's worth, here is a recap of what transpired: I made an edit, one person didn't like it, accused me of having sockpuppet accounts, when I told him he was wrong another editor put me on final warning, when I deleted those edits the original editor applied a block. Johutton's user page shows he has made false accusations of vandalism before that have been proven later to be errors. 'm not unconvinced johutton is a sockpupper of TravisTX based on the fact a minute after I responded on Travis' page johutton issued an additional warning. Basically, I'm fairly new here, have enjoyed editing and want to be a part of wikipedia but it seems like there are others who want this to be an exclusive club reserved for only the few. That's a shame.

Decline reason:

This is a short block and I hope you take the time to relax and read what's been said without reverting to being uncivil towards others (as you did towards Jayron). Continuing to act in this way could result in an extension of your original block . Nja²⁴⁷ 07:07, 1 May 2009 (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.

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).

Fredd7271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wish to apologize for my actions and appeal the block of my username and IP address (which is used by an entire apartment complex). This whole incident arose because of one edit to the Houston Texans page which I thought was humorous and easy to revert. The edits by freddy96, while an unfortunate coincidence due to the name and timing, were not made by myself despite the allegation made by TravisTX. Regardless my actions were immature and I apologize. I overreacted to the warnings on my user talk page. I was frustrated with my inability to respond to the allegations against me due to being blocked and so I used my roommate's account to request someone look into the block. In the future, I will not use edits as a way of making a joke or personal attacks and I will refrain from using any account other than this one. I apologize for my behavior, I don't want it to affect my neighbors' ability to use wikipedia. Before the edit in question, I made significant contributions to a handful of articles in areas of interest to me. I'd like to continue to be able to make such contributions. Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal and I look forward to being a productive member of the wikipedia community in the future. posted on behalf of Fredd7271 by Nja247.

Decline reason:

Would you care to discuss your creation of Lawreviewy (talk · contribs)? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 1 May 2009 (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.

• Reviewing admins: Personally I think it's a good block, however in the name of fairness I've agreed to post this request on their behalf and further I have no issue if you wish to edit the block. Of course be sure to consider the previous issues raised on their talk page prior to blanking, and of course socks used. I have also alerted the user that the autoblock on the IP used will not effect other users of their apartment building after 24 hours of no abuse. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that I confused this user with another (both their user names start with Fr). Therefore there was no reason for me to post this on their behalf as they can edit their own talk page! Regardless, it's done and here for you to make your decision. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I don't dispute that it's a good block. I'm just asking to be forgiven for this one isolated incident given my otherwise clean record and in light of the substantial contributions I've made to certain articles. Obviously, if a similar incident occurs in the future, I would deserve to be permanently banned. fredd7271²⁴⁷ 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned you before about this

I warned you before not to remove declined unblock requests while you are currently blocked. This is unacceptable. I have returned these declined requests above. Do not remove these again, or you will not be allowed to edit your talk page anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon

I created the username to make the one disputed edit. Since it was a new username, I was unable to. Like I said, this whole controversy is over one poorly thought-out attempt to make a joke by changing the team's uniforms from red to pink. All that was necessary was a simple revert and the entire issue would've been over. Since then the disproportionate response of both myself and other users have turned this into an unnecessary fiasco.

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).

Fredd7271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I created the username to make the one disputed edit. Since it was a new username, I was unable to. Like I said, this whole controversy is over one poorly thought-out attempt to make a joke by changing the team's uniforms from red to pink. All that was necessary was a simple revert and the entire issue would've been over. Since then the disproportionate response of both myself and other users have turned this into an unnecessary fiasco.

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (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.

Ivy League template

Definitely not trying to make this worse, but you created a duplicate template - I notified WikiProject College football and it will probably be deleted, but not by me. These things (duplicates) happen, no biggie. I admit I have a slight personal interest as an old (too old) Ivy League. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see that. Someone should add the template to the individual team pages. fredd7271

It looks as though it is, a quick check on What links here: [2]. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're talking about. Some schools have articles on individual teams though (i.e. Penn Quakers basketball) which do not have the template. fredd7271

Changing others comments

Please do not change the text of the comments that other people leave you, as you have done here: [3]. You may respond to other people's comments, but changing the words of others to say something different is misleading and disruptive. Do not do it anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'll be one of the first to note that most of your edits have been productive, particularly to your apparent favorite NFL team. You just happened to do something petty and vindictive to an article I have on my watchlist. I'm sorry (well actually, not so much) that the Jags can't beat the Texans. That being said, if you'll promise to stay away from rival teams' articles, adhere to the principles of this encyclopedia, to renounce the use of sock- and/or meatpuppets, and to heed the advice left on this page for you, I'll unblock you myself. Deal? —Travis^talk 03:44, 2 May 2009 (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).

Fredd7271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a gross abuse of admin power. My account has been blocked for over two weeks when the original block was supposed to be for only 24 hours.

Decline reason:

Perfectly legitimate to expand the block based upon conduct while blocked. Technically, you are indefinitely blocked. The two weeks is just your time period. Suggest listening to Travis below and renouncing the disruption you are causing. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2009 (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.

Abuse of admin power? Look, you were given a short block for vandalism and personal attacks. When you then escalated to sockpuppetry and throwing about unfounded accusations, i.e. more personal attacks, you were blocked indefinitely by another admin. In spite of all that, I offered to unblock you if you would promise to renounce your disruptive behavior. In case you're interested, that offer is still open. —Travis^talk 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JaguarsAlternateLogo1.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JaguarsAlternateLogo1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JaguarsOldLogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JaguarsOldLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JaguarsInauguralSeasonlogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JaguarsInauguralSeasonlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:JagsFound.gif

Thank you for uploading File:JagsFound.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)