User talk:Xqe

No Child Left Inside Act of 2009

I made some improvements to No Child Left Inside Act of 2009. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Richmond High School gang rape‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. If you wish to remove only your comments, that's your choice, but do not remove others; also stop removing the SPA tag - you have made few to no edits outside of AfD - hence the tag -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Random account 39949472 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Further comments: Checkuser block - Alison ^❤ 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no confirmation of Jessica's ban. So I am not evading her ban. If she was banned she would have been listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users. You aren't assuming good faith by saying that all editors of an IP address that was used by User:Random account 39949472 is her. If I deserve the block, just block me as Xqe, but don't block me as Jessica's sock.

Decline reason:

You are so patently obviously Jessica, that it is humorous. You know what you need to do to fix this problem, please stop wasting our time. Jayron32 19:30, 8 January 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.

So why won't you add her to the list? It's required to record banned users. Xqe (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica is not community banned because there is no DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMUNITY. THE SPI INVESTIGATION IS NOT VALID TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE SHOULD BE BANNED. THE CONSENSUS MUST BE COMING FROM UNINVOLVED EDITORS TO BAN HER. WIKIPEDIA IS SO CORRUPT. Xqe (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica is not banned, she is blocked. There is no corruption. A user does not have to be banned in order to be blocked. While a user is blocked, they may not edit under a different account until after the block on their account is lifted. --Jayron32 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well tell User:WhatamIdoing that. She keeps asserting that she is banned. Xqe (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]