User talk:RealCowboys

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

foxj This is my main account, there is no others, I would please like to be unblocked now and continue to contribute to wikipedia. As I stated im not a troll, I just dont like the fact that Suitcivil133 is not getting introuble for removing edits but if it were me then im a "troll" and I get banned for it. He likes my teams rival and im not sure why but he tries to have shine a negative light on Real Madrid and he thinks of that as "correct" information yet (I did this as an expirement) when I added the same edits that he did on the Real Madrid page to the FC Barcelona page he removes it and accuses me as vandalism.

Decline reason:

See below. --MuZemike 18:36, 3 May 2012 (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.

Yes there are other accounts, including User:MadridFG7, User:MadridistaFG7, and User:Suitecivil133isafag. Moreover, please explain these edits:

It is clear that you are acting like a little girl throwing massive temper tantrums after getting her candy taken away from her just because you did not get your way. I see no reason whatsoever to unblock, and you have had many chances to be constructive, and you have blown every single last one of them. Go away, you are not welcome here. --MuZemike 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIRSTLY YOU DO NOT DISRESPECT ME LIKE THAT GOT THAT KID, second I realize what I have done wrong as for all that trash talking was not me, If you look at my past conributions I did not vandal anything, as of your manner of anger you will be reported as well. RealCowboys (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that first diff I linked was from this exact account, assuming that are other accounts are not yours, which you're blatantly lying there. You scream about being disrespected, but yet you are perfectly comfortable in disrespecting other editors when someone makes edits to an article that you don't like. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unwilling to work with others, and that is why you have been blocked and basically de facto banned. --MuZemike 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You dont know me, you cant acuse me of not willing to work with others, I made other accounts to show people like YOU that I am willing to change yet without even a chance I am blocked, 3 of those links you have provided are false or I never even wrote them, that is the first time I seen those and that user Suitciviisafag or whatever, why the hell would I create that!? Thats just complete stupidity, I got over the line mad but im not a "screaming little girl", nor is anyone "scream"ing, this is wikipedia. RealCowboys (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you were screaming above in your last comment. Secondly, if those accounts aren't yours, then who are you hiring to harass Suitcivil133 for you? How much are you paying them? --MuZemike 18:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second off, no one is screaming, you nor I can hear through wikipedia, how am I harrasing Suitcivil133 I have not even commented on his user talk page, you acuse ME of doing all that but you really dont know it was me, how much does wikipedia pay you to be a block head? RealCowboys (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are putting the correct word in ALL CAPS, just as with this comment? --MuZemike 19:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you want me to put??? I gave you a valid reason as to why I think I should be unblocked but before you could say no, you insult me. RealCowboys (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

foxj how might one report other administrators, as ive learned in wikipedia, no one was the right to attack others nor call eachother immature names, MuZemike is clearly abusing that rule or policy. RealCowboys (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think there's much else to be said here. Be serious or I'll need to remove your talkpage access, because this is growing droll. — foxj 18:53, 3 May 2012 (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.

Im am being serious, I did not make one gesture that I was goofing around. RealCowboys (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foxj, you be serious or else your a waste. RealCowboys (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, or by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]