User talk:Hand snoojy

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Please note: "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert." Please self-revert or you may be reported. --Neil N  talk to me 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN What rule am I breaking here?.The rule is one revert per day, that's not breaking the rule.I added some content and you deleted it without my permission then i reverted ONCE.Hand snoojy (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC).


 * The rule is one revert per 24 hours. You re-added previously deleted material yesterday and again in less than 24 hours. --Neil N  talk to me 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN It's called adding new content not reverting it.Hand snoojy (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not new content as a sockpuppet kept adding the same thing. Very well, I will let you know when my report is done. --Neil N  talk to me 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN A sockpuppet?Whats that a spambot?Hand snoojy (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect you very well know. --Neil N  talk to me 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Why was the content deleted?I'm not anti anything, it just needed to be posted, think about it..Hand snoojy (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to ISIL, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
See also: WP:EW, user:Update stormtrooper and User:Absolution provider 1999. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Checkusers will not do "clear my name" checks, since in most cases the user requesting them knows how to manipulate their IP to get a negative result. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And it was just a coincidence that your first edits to the article restored (as "new") text added by a series of sockpuppets, right? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Seicer User:PhilKnight No suspected sock puppets added and none confirmed.Why are we even here in the first place?.Hand snoojy (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For more background, see Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999. The common theme of the various socks is adding 'justification based on religious texts' to the ISIL article. Since User:Hand snoojy has now been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, it might be time to update and close the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If a person stands for something some people will stand for him and others will oppose him that's my current situation. First the material I inserted was not copyrighted in any way. Second, ONLY I was blocked for edit warring and none of the other users were even given a warning and now I'm blocked for sock puppetry. None of my actions were disruptive and I still haven't got any responses from any Administrators because they think I'm a sockpuppet. If you're gonna jump to conclusions and think I'm a sock puppet without providing any evidence I can very well accuse all the editors on wikipedia of sock puppetry. I request the administrators to unblock me right away. If you're going to delay this you'll waste more time .Hand snoojy (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston Excuse me can we get a move on please! Just because I supported some guys or girls edit doesn't make me a sock puppet.Hand snoojy (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said above, anyone requesting a "clear my name" check generally knows how to manipulate the result, so CUs will not perform them. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 18:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)