Garnerted
Indefinitely blocked edit
I've changed your block to indefinite as you seem to have ignored every notice above, engaging in personal attacks, ownership of articles and in general, violating our guidelines on cooperative editing, instead embarking on a crusade of disruption. I don't see how you can convince anyone that you'll be able to interact in a way consistent with our principles and engage in cooperative editing that do not push your own POV. Of course you are free to contest this block using the {{unblock}} template, but I urge you to read WP:GAB first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Garnerted (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why should I be blocked for simply making factual the article? The other users were trying to put down the original article for our christian television broadcast which remains in current 2012 production and they were misleading folks into thinking it was defunct as of 1994. While at the same time they are guilty of what they falsely accuse in promoting the World Tomorrow page that was just freshly created for Julian Assange. We are currently engaged in litigation against Assange for copyright and trademark infringement of The World Tomorrow broadcast. Feel free to contact me directly should you wish to discuss this matter further, otherwise I stand by my previous edits and I take what happened this morning with your cronies as a personal attack against our program and the work of God. Sincerely, Garner Ted Aukerman, The World Tomorrow; Screen Actor's Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (removed phone) Garnerted (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You might be right, you might be wrong. I honestly don't know. But you're not blocked for being right or wrong - you're blocked for threatening other editors, personally attacking other editors, Editing in violation of our Conflict of Interest policies, and general disruptive editing. You also have no edits whatsoever to the article's talk page - which means you never once attempted to discuss the problems you had with the article. Rather than saying "Hey, the facts of this article are wrong, here's a link with more information", you just waded right in and made changes - and then dismissed anyone who disagreed with you by accusing them of vandalism. Ignoring the conflict of interest, which is itself enough to block at this point, it is clear that you absolutely cannot be unblocked until you're able to discuss and collaborate with other editors. Your comments here make that seem unlikely. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:15, 17 April 2012 (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.
Note that I removed your phone number from your statement. It is unnecessary, as all communications regarding this block need to be kept on-wiki. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry edit
You or someone in your organization has clearly been engaging in sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Consequences of sock puppetry, and Wikipedia:Obvious sock is obvious. I have created a page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted to keep track of the sockpuppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)