User talk:Adrionwells

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. dave pape (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Daniel Tosh. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evading a block explained at 71.188.115.27 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#71.188.115.27_and_9.2F11_sanctions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you're the same person. The only differences in behavior between each account only comes up only after similarities are pointed out, and yet you continue to go on about "I'm not advocating the theory, but mainstream sources are clearly wrong and these totally-not-conspiracy-theorists are on to something." Ian.thomson (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock| I would like to have this reviewed by an unbiased admin. I've had the same few admins reviewing this block, and they are clearly biased on this issue to the point that they are unable to distinguish my attempt to improve the article with an attempt to promote fringe theories. If you look at the conversation you will see that my comments were constructive. }

This account has had no previous blocks, and no other admin reviewed it before you posted your first appeal. Ergo, when you say "I've had the same few admins reviewing this block," you are admitting that you are 71.188.115.27. The block was per a community consensus here -- you, as a person, are not welcome on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Suddenly you are capable of critical thinking. Weird. User Ian.thomson has been rude and ignorant from the start. I would like a higher level admin to review the situation and see that my edits (mostly just on the talk page) are in good faith whether or not I'm right. This lack of professionalism and intellectual rigor gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2017 (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.

Talk page access revoked. Other admins will review your blocks. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]