User talk:WeirdFire

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think so[reply]

And you are very rude

And I don't know what I did wrong after you left the first message

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

The person who blocked me only gave me one warning

Decline reason:

Attacking other editors is a good way not to get unblocked. If you didn't know that the content you were adding was inappropriate, they I would say you don't have the necessary competence required for editing Wikipedia Jac16888 ^Talk 10:24, 5 August 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So you attack me and say I am not competent?! I see how this works, someone will see this as one sticking up for another

Decline reason:

Blatant vandal/troll. I have revoked talk page access, and have restored the warnings and block message that had been removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2012 (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.

Declined admin may want to take note of BrightFrost (talk · contribs) and 137.166.152.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

That is not being rude. He is simply warning you for your disruptive editing.

Vincent Liu (something to say?) 09:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]