User talk:Truthseek77

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. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For severe BLP violations. Furthermore, but not essential for blocking, this account is almost surely a sock. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 15 April 2010 (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).

Truthseek77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe I understand which edits violated the BLP policy as I didn't properly consider the fact that echoing such pruruient allegations are certainly inappropriate given Wikipedia's guidelines. In hindsight, that they are is completely obvious. I apologize greatly for my error and if you are persuaded by my appeal, I will no longer make any such edits both in terms of its violation of Wikipedia's guidelines as well as its thoughtlessness. As to the allegation that this is a sock, it's not. I'm just a college student participating in the Wikipedia community as part of an assignment for a class who made an inappropriate edit without properly thinking it through. I made this account for the class and don't have another account. That said, I can certainly understand why from the outside it would appear as though I am. Thanks for your time.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, your edits were so egregious that they had to be

96 00:41, 1 May 2010 (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.

• As I see that you are a college student who made this account for use in a class assignment project, I would highly advise you to take a look at {{
  second chance}} and apply the suggestions there. If you post a second unblock request after you do some work on the articles you are meant to work on, I'm sure that some administrator will be willing to unblock you. NW (Talk) 00:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article This is the Public Domain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is the Public Domain until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]