User talk:QuackDoctor

Welcome!

Hello, QuackDoctor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Getting started
Introduction to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to

talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

April 2018

illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 29 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is ridicilous I am not abusing multiple accounts. The admin NeilN has picked a side in conflict, and his block is completely unjustified.

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2018 (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.

Reviewing admin: See here. Whether sock or meat puppetry, there's too many coincidences here. And seeing as I've blocked Miki Filigranski in the past, I'm hardly "picking a side". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, nice try. All NeilN has done has been to revert and block you and your socks. Left a comment on one of your other user talk pages.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]