Janitor999
February 2009
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Seaford, East Sussex, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Seaford, East Sussex was changed by Janitor999 (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-02-11T17:07:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to the page Cardinal Newman Catholic School (Hove) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Seaford, East Sussex, you will be blocked from editing. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Janitor999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have to apologize most profoundly for my latest edits, especially the one about the school. It turns out my source was wrong and it is not a Islam School. Also the vandalism to the Seaford, East Sussex page won't happen again and from now on i will make constructive edits only to Wikipedia. Sorry for any inconvenience, it won't happen again
Decline reason:
I really don't believe you with edits like this. GARDEN 19:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
- Comment from blocking administrator: I recommend against removing the block because there is no reason to believe this editor will behave any differently, or that he was acting under some mistake. I don't believe it's plausible that the blocked editor honestly believed that Cardinal Newman Catholic School (Hove) had switched to an Islamic school. Even setting aside the prima facie absurdity of such a belief, this could have been checked by a quick visit to the school's website, which is prominently linked to from that article. The blocked editor also, in the same edit, changed the genders of all the faculty listed, which can only be interpreted as vandalism rather than a mistake of fact. See also this edit, in which the user wiped out the talk page of the contributor who warned him about that vandalism, and promised to evade any blocks by signing in with another account. His multiple edits to Seaford, East Sussex prior to and after editing the school article were also clearly vandalism. Postdlf (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: A common history of recent vandalism on Seaford, East Sussex (history here), coupled with similar editing habits on The Labyrinth of Gedref here and here, lead me to believe that this user is a sock of blocked user Crying347. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Janitor999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I once again would just like to say sorry for any trouble caused by my wrong and childish edits. i promise that i will only do constructive edits from now on and remember to check my sources more throughly in future. Please could i just have one more chance and i apologize for any comments or edits i have made that could be regarded as vandalism and promise not to do so again. Also i am not Crying347. i have no idea who he/she is and only have this one account and if i get blocked, i have no intention of creating another, despite my earlier threat which was said in the heat of the moment.
Decline reason:
You can't seriously think that we would believe that you simply used an unreliable source for that school. Just stop trying to sell that rubbish. —Travistalk 21:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
Janitor999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place and I'm not a sock puppet. Learn to forgive and forget and if I vandalize again, you can block me for good. (Janitor999 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
Decline reason:
There are no positive edits by this account, so there is no evidence that you are capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
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.