User talk:Joshua761312006

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for using Wikipedia for advertising and adding copyrighted text to Wikipedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (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).

Joshua761312006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry I did not know that I could not do that.

Decline reason:

You could, but you should not have.' You received sufficient warnings, see below. Sandstein 07:01, 10 November 2009 (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.

Did you know that, although you can remove the four warnings from your talk page, they are still easily seen in the page history? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Contributions

Now that you know your behavior isn't allowed, what sort of contributions would you make (i.e. why should your block be lifted before its set expiration date)? TN X Man 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exco Resources

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Exco Resources, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.excoresources.com/company_history.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated use of Wikipedia for promotion and repeated introduction of copyrighted text to Wikipedia. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2009 (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).

Joshua761312006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have learned a lot over the four months and I will not be like this again in regards to copyright infringment it definitly was wrong.

Decline reason:

No response to Anthony.Bradbury's query in two days. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 6 June 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.

If you are unblocked, how exactly do you plan to contribute to Wikipedia? Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also love to know where/how you gained your new knowledge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would like your comments on the fact that this block is for exactly the same reason, and for the same offences, as your previous one. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:20, 4 June 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).

Joshua761312006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

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

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 13 July 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.

I learned that it was not right and what I did was stupid and very wrong

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).

Joshua761312006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not again mess up the integrity of the great wikipedia website it was a huge security risk and I know that scholars use this for research and doing this is in an injustice to their research. I will make positive contributions to wikipedia so that this website benefits everybody and also will make people gain more knowledge of the world.

Decline reason:

Answers to questions are clearly not positive, or are barely even answers. "Oops, I forgot" is not positive, as I see no possible reasons that the issue will happen again. As humans, we learn from our mistakes - you apparently do not. As such, I see future potential that the project will be placed at risk again due to "forgetting late at night" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 13 July 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.

I combined two requests for unblock into one; no need to have multiple active requests. On point, you still haven't responded to Anthony Bradbury's question, above, which read thus: "I personally would like your comments on the fact that this block is for exactly the same reason, and for the same offences, as your previous one." I can't comment on this request until you've addressed that point, which seems to describe the key problem fairly well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was late at night I was not thinking and I did that mistake sorry ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua761312006 (talk • contribs)

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).

Joshua761312006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fine then colleges do not like using your website anyway and you know what if you guys are going to critize peoples answers fine I am through with you freaks apparant actually I do learn from my mistakes you are the mistake that made much better web research website Encarta go out of business. You know what is a mistake this website I always have to look somewhere else to do my research. This website is poorly maintained and I hope one of these days this website gets shutdown.

Decline reason:

Worst unblock reason ever. It's clear that unblocking you would serve no positive purpose. As abusive unblock requests are never granted and as it is clear you have nothing to do here except to troll...I'm removing your talkpage access. Smashville^talk 20:30, 13 July 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.