User talk:Oncewereradicals

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Irfsol (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Hi there. Please make suggestions and corrections that are needed on the article talk page. Commenting on an editor will get you blocked rapidly. I am sympathetic to your concerns, but you need to discuss them and have a bit of patience so we can get them resolved. You may also be asked to change usernames per our policies regarding usernames that can be seen as advertorial. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, we can't take anyone's word for something, so content changes need to be supported by citations to reliable sources.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Irfan Yusuf, you will be blocked from editing. Leivick (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Irfan Yusuf. Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at [email protected] and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you'll get the chance to read this but I think it's a shame you've been unable to contribute to the article without resorting to vandalism, and so on. The article is well-sourced and has been contributed to now by several editors now. I think they've done a really good job so far. Soon we'll be incorporating relevant parts from Yusuf's book that I think will help improve the article even more. It's a terrible shame you've chosen not to be part of that, instead blanking the article, adding in stupid comments and so on. Very disappointing. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]