User talk:Unc 2002

Welcome!

Hi Unc 2002! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use edit summaries to attack other editors. See WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial bias"?!?! I believe that phrase is an oxymoron. A controversy may be about whether or not something is biased, or in which direction. If such a controversy exists, then by that fact alone it is not a given whether or not there is any bias. If it were clear, there would be no controversy. So you see, there's no such thing. Kevin Baas^talk 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Fox News Channel. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - auburnpilot's sock 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsn9333 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Unc 2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got onto campus this morning after the weekend and saw I have been blocked... did not even have a chance to defend myself. I am not a socket puppet. At worst you could say I am a "meat puppet", since a friend of mine got me interested in wikipedia, but I'm not even a meat puppet in the true sense of the word. I have been involved with other articles (not just the one-sided Fox News entry my friend told me about). This is not fair! Am I seriously forbidden from editing articles forever!? What about articles other then Fox News that I have taken interest in? How is that fair, given the situation? To be honest I don't even see how it is fair to ban me from the Fox News entry forever... but much less all entries. Also, I apologize for the edit from this IP I just made to Fox News. I just logged on, assumed I was logged in, and didn't realize I wasn't until after I saved. Once I logged in I saw I was the subject of socket puppet accusations... so please don't assume that was a socket puppet attempt on my part.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= I got onto campus this morning after the weekend and saw I have been blocked... did not even have a chance to defend myself.  I am not a socket puppet.  At worst you could say I am a "meat puppet", since a friend of mine got me interested in wikipedia, but I'm not even a meat puppet in the true sense of the word. I have been involved with other articles (not just the one-sided Fox News entry my friend told me about).  This is not fair!  Am I seriously forbidden from editing articles forever!?  What about articles other then Fox News that I have taken interest in?  How is that fair, given the situation?  To be honest I don't even see how it is fair to ban me from the Fox News entry forever... but much less all entries.  Also, I apologize for the edit from this IP I just made to Fox News.  I just logged on, assumed I was logged in, and didn't realize I wasn't until after I saved.  Once I logged in I saw I was the subject of socket puppet accusations... so please don't assume that was a socket puppet attempt on my part. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= I got onto campus this morning after the weekend and saw I have been blocked... did not even have a chance to defend myself.  I am not a socket puppet.  At worst you could say I am a "meat puppet", since a friend of mine got me interested in wikipedia, but I'm not even a meat puppet in the true sense of the word. I have been involved with other articles (not just the one-sided Fox News entry my friend told me about).  This is not fair!  Am I seriously forbidden from editing articles forever!?  What about articles other then Fox News that I have taken interest in?  How is that fair, given the situation?  To be honest I don't even see how it is fair to ban me from the Fox News entry forever... but much less all entries.  Also, I apologize for the edit from this IP I just made to Fox News.  I just logged on, assumed I was logged in, and didn't realize I wasn't until after I saved.  Once I logged in I saw I was the subject of socket puppet accusations... so please don't assume that was a socket puppet attempt on my part. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= I got onto campus this morning after the weekend and saw I have been blocked... did not even have a chance to defend myself.  I am not a socket puppet.  At worst you could say I am a "meat puppet", since a friend of mine got me interested in wikipedia, but I'm not even a meat puppet in the true sense of the word. I have been involved with other articles (not just the one-sided Fox News entry my friend told me about).  This is not fair!  Am I seriously forbidden from editing articles forever!?  What about articles other then Fox News that I have taken interest in?  How is that fair, given the situation?  To be honest I don't even see how it is fair to ban me from the Fox News entry forever... but much less all entries.  Also, I apologize for the edit from this IP I just made to Fox News.  I just logged on, assumed I was logged in, and didn't realize I wasn't until after I saved.  Once I logged in I saw I was the subject of socket puppet accusations... so please don't assume that was a socket puppet attempt on my part. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Having been previously involved with the FNC issue, I will not decline or grant the unblock request, but I seriously believe this is a case of meatpuppetry over sockpuppetry. As such, if Unc 2002 agrees to stop participating in the FNC discussion and agrees not to edit the FNC page, I would support reducing the block to match the one given to Jsn9333 (talk · contribs). The IP used by Unc 2002 to edit the FNC page[1] appears to confirm the findings of the checkuser case (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsn9333). - auburnpilot talk 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]