User talk:Joeidaho

Regarding your edits to Casey Stengel:[edit]

Your recent edit to Casey Stengel (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation[edit]

Good Evening (GMT time); thank you for posting to the WP:RFM page with regards to the Joe Girardi team colors. However, the only posts to that page should be formal Requests for Mediation. If you wish to file one of these, you must follow the instructions listed here (as well as the text at the top of the WP:RFM page).

Of particular importance in filing a RfM is this text:

“

...parties should have made an attempt at some form of initial, informal resolution...

”

"Informal resolution" may be sought from the Mediation Cabal, who will attempt to resolve your case using Informal mediation; if such attempts are unsuccessful, then a Request may be filed. Therefore, if you have not attempted such actions, you should do so now.

If you have, then feel free to file a request, but please note that it must be in accordance with the instructions provided. In addition, I noticed that you mentioned "constant reverting" - if this is a simple complaint about a user revert-warring (as shown at this page), then a report should be filed at WP:AN3 where an Administrator will deal with it in due course.

Thank you for your co-operation, and good luck with your request!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

You have abused sock puppets. You deserve this ban along with all your other socks Pascack Soxrock 21:30, 20 July 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

request to reduce ban from indefinite. Mghabmw did 21RR in 24 hours and only got a 2-day ban.

Decline reason:

Unless you give some sort of reason in your unblock request, it will not be granted. Other people's blocks are not relevant. — Until(1 == 2) 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Why do you care about him? You abused sockpuppets Ron Liebman-style and do not deserve to edit wikipedia. Plain and simple Soxrock 22:30, 22 July 2007 (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.

Except that you are mghabmw (I notice how you quickly brought him up). You've interpreted jaranda's leniency on you as a sign that you can continue on in your current course (as I note on your userpage). This is quite discouraging. The Evil Spartan 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]