Kev iz bak
March 2008
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. PseudoOne (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:Vandalism
Well, first of all, you are blanking many articles with nonsense that is not constructive at all. PseudoOne (talk)
- Take a look at this edit. Many of the other edits that you are making are just like it. It also appears that you are a suspecte sockpuppet, so I suspect these edits to be vandalism.
- Care to explain your opinion on how it is reasonable? PseudoOne (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- If the content is outdated, you can update it. PseudoOne (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was doing. Only for some reason my edits appear to not be appreciated and I have been blocked. Kev iz bak (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, updating would be something other than replacing the page with nonsense content, I'm afraid. Reply on your talk page if you will. PseudoOne (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to understand why you think the updated content is nonsense. Kev iz bak (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then. I do not understand what "eh i iz once ad dis bet 4 a fiver dat i iz wud b da 1st person 2 nok owt dis spastic dude. e were well dumb lyk. but me m8 nokd im owt first. were well funny" means in English. This encyclopedia is too be even more simple than normal english, right? That's why I believe the content is nonsense. PseudoOne (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence you quote makes perfect sense to me, and is certainly the sort of thing that is said by the most "simple" of english speakers. Kev iz bak (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence appears to contain words that may sound like foreign English, but the words are inpronouncable and completely misspelled. The line also appears to be one sentence, which is not enough content to satisfy readers of an encyclopedia. PseudoOne (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "foreign" english. I would have thought that this particular kind of sentence was quite easy to read, since some complicated words have been spelled in a manner that makes them easy to read. As for being one long sentence, this enables the language to flow more freely which is actually more helpful to the reader than shorter, more frequently interrupted sentences. Kev iz bak (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence appears to contain words that may sound like foreign English, but the words are inpronouncable and completely misspelled. The line also appears to be one sentence, which is not enough content to satisfy readers of an encyclopedia. PseudoOne (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence you quote makes perfect sense to me, and is certainly the sort of thing that is said by the most "simple" of english speakers. Kev iz bak (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then. I do not understand what "eh i iz once ad dis bet 4 a fiver dat i iz wud b da 1st person 2 nok owt dis spastic dude. e were well dumb lyk. but me m8 nokd im owt first. were well funny" means in English. This encyclopedia is too be even more simple than normal english, right? That's why I believe the content is nonsense. PseudoOne (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to understand why you think the updated content is nonsense. Kev iz bak (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, updating would be something other than replacing the page with nonsense content, I'm afraid. Reply on your talk page if you will. PseudoOne (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was doing. Only for some reason my edits appear to not be appreciated and I have been blocked. Kev iz bak (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- If the content is outdated, you can update it. PseudoOne (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain your opinion on how it is reasonable? PseudoOne (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at this edit. Many of the other edits that you are making are just like it. It also appears that you are a suspecte sockpuppet, so I suspect these edits to be vandalism.
Unblock
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kev_iz_bak (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
All of my edits were constructive. Please see [1] and [2] for relevant discussion of this issue.
Decline reason:
Your edits were not constructive and you are possibley using sockpuppets. Oysterguitarist 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)