User talk:Tamamtamamtamam
September 2009[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Julfa, Azerbaijan (city) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6XfcZqVDWE&feature=player_embedded, http://youtube.com/watch?v=JZu2zqFE_gI (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted the edit. Tamamtamamtamam (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tamamtamamtamam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Excuse me, but after having uploaded a couple of images and making a few edits, I have found myself blocked for no reason. Who has been accusing me of being another editor, where has this accusation been presented? Don't I have a right of response? What sort of mafiosi setup is this? Because there is no justification for this block I will either just continue editing without logging in or I will make another account.
Decline reason:
User:Meowy, you are not allowed to create a new account to avoid your block. Please don't do it again. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:55, 16 September 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.
Tamamtamamtamam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not that other user! Why are you refusing to tell me where this false accusation was made and discussed and accepted?
Decline reason:
What FisherQueen said. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:27, 16 September 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.
Tamamtamamtamam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"What FisherQueen said" - what is that meant to mean? She/he said nothing to me. I am not that user Meowy! I've now discovered where the accusation was initiated - it was here [1], on an administrators talk page, with my accuser actually saying he suspected that I was three other blocked editors (or should that be one other blocked editor, if those editors were all one person - I really don't care about these petty squabbles about who is who). None one of those 3 editors had done any editing on the few articles I have edited, so I wonder about the motives of my accuser. And versageek seems to have blocked me just because I have the same internet service provider as a completely different blocked user! I guess there are at least 456,999 other users in Britain with exactly the same isp number as myself ([2] "O2 currently has 457,000 fixed land-line broadband customers (O2 - June 2009 figures)". I also see that Meowy has also been incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry in the past [3].
I came to Wikipedia specifically to add some images to the Aurora Mardiganian and Near East Relief articles, from there I had a look at the articles that had links within the NER article. And for those articles I had a look at their links, and their edit histories, and also at the edit histories of the editors who had edited them to see what other articles they had been editing. In other words, I was taking the easiest way of quickly familiarising myself with the greatest number of articles that are connected to the areas that I have knowledge of and interest in. But it seems I made a big mistake in not also having a look at the talk pages of those editors, and at their interactions with each other and with administrators. Doing that would have revealed to me a lot of the unpleasant behind-the-scene activities that seem to be going on here. None of my very limited mumber of edits were disruptive, none of them were part of any edit war, all of them were constructive and positive, and I always explained my edits in the articles talk pages or edit summaries, and also asked legitimate questions in those talk pages - but, despite all that, within a week of being here I have been accused by one editor of being the sockpuppet of three different people, and then blocked after being accused of being the sockpuppet of a fourth person!
Decline reason:
Checkuser confirmed sock. Smashvilletalk 18:49, 16 September 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.
- Agree, checkuser confirmed this. No more requests here, please use your main account. Mangojuicetalk 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am using my main account!!! Tamamtamamtamam (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)