User talk:T2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "Appeal requested per block reason: Abusing multiple accounts: sock of I-210, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/T2"
Decline reason: "That is not really a valid reason to request an unblock. The link you provided proves that you are in fact a sockpuppet. Declined. Tiptoety talk 03:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

What I'm supposed to do? --T2 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean't to say another chance requested. --T2 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my edits are completely constructive and not disruptive. --T2 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is incorrectly mass-changing the capitalization of categories and uploading new versions of files with negligible changes (and often reverting those changes) constructive? Also: it took nine revisions, two of which were reverts, to make these small changes? What I see happening here is more a waste of resources than anything constructive. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I'm not so sure on what am I'm doing here. --T2 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deserved to be blocked for sockpuppeteering. --T2 (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you are socking...so. Tiptoety talk 07:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about SchnitzelMannGreek (Talk)? [1]. He was blocked for making death threats and also abusing multiple accounts and then he gets unblocked for assuming good faith. Editors deserve a another chance when they made their apologies and promises on not doing it again at all. --T2 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely. Please find something else to do with your free time. --Rschen7754 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're currently not a administrator. --T2 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking for the community. --Rschen7754 (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interstate_73_in_Michigan[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Interstate_73_in_Michigan has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Imzadi 1979 → 07:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interstate_73_in_Ohio[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Interstate_73_in_Ohio has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:California State Route 91 Express Lanes.svg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:California State Route 91 Express Lanes.svg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:California State Route 91 Express Lanes.svg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:T2&oldid=326842253"