User talk:Rhghes2137

Bishop Ahr HS edits
Your recent edits to the article for Bishop George Ahr High School] removed sourced content and added material regarding the school's mission statement that is deprecated per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. As such your edits have been reverted. Please review the relevant Wikipedia policies and feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the mission statement, please see WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, which describes why Wikipedia policy is to exclude them as largely promotional in nature, and the school's version is an excellent example of this issue. Removal of relevant sourced content will be treated as vandalism. I'm not sure what "an unauthorized usage of the school's information policy" means, but school policy has no relevance here. These changes will be reverted again. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't contribute any more edits like this or this. It is disruptive to the work of the encyclopaedia and you will be blocked if this continues. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
Based on the identical spelling mistake made in this edit by another editor and this edit by you I can only conclude that you are operating two accounts as sockpuppets. I am therefore blocking both accounts; you may appeal via the process given in the notice below. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I would like to request more of an explanation. I do not see how I am a "verified abuser of multiple accounts." While I do understand how it might appear that way, I do NOT understand how such an accusation has been proven. Rhghes2137 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The spelling mistake was in the edit summary, not the edit itself. You typed "rule" when you meant "role" in all three edit summaries, even when the rest of those summaries were different. In other words the mistake can't be a copy-paste error but is much more likely a characteristic, signature spelling error committed by one individual. Even the wording of your unblock requests is very similar. Please don't insult our intelligence any further! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  07:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, the mistake was a copy-paste error. I was not, in any way, insulting you intelligence, and I apologize if you misunderstood me. I know for a fact that you are simply doing your job by trying to remove all forms of sock puppetry, but in this case, you are mistaken. I don't know if there is a way for me to prove it to you, but if there is, I would certainly like to do so. Rhghes2137 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Reviewing admin: Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Jcullinan. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement
I have been wrongfully accused of being a "sock puppet." As a result, I have been blocked. Administrators have done nothing to even attempt to see my side of this situation. I would like any users who happen to come across my talk page to know that I am not a liar and my efforts to improve Wikipedia have been earnest. That's all I have to say. Rhghes2137 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)