A tag has been placed on British Integralist Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MuffledThud (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have written this article because it is based on some of the research that I have done on the British Integralist party and it is based on some of the members that I have spoken to. I suggest that you contact the group for more information by clicking on the hyperlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs)
  • Contacting the group is the last thing we need to do! What you must do is provide independent evidence from reliable sources that the group has made any impact on the world. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to British Integralist Party, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: British Integralist Party was changed by NatDemUK (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-03-22T19:03:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with British Integralist Party. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. MuffledThud (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to British National Front. Thank you. A blog is not a reliable source, simply because we do not know if the post you're relying on is genuine. If you have a better source, please use it, but not this one. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Andrew Brons. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2009/April.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, NatDemUK, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears that you represent the National Democrats (UK).. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Fences&Windows 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not represent the National Democrats, I just used that name to reflect my political beliefs.

OK, no problem. Fences&Windows 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian certainly felt he was a Neo-Nazi:[1] Academics also use that characterisation, e.g. Roger Griffin: "Under its founder, John Tyndall, the BNP had upheld an overtly neo-Nazi and resolutely Anglocentric vision of Britain's future in the world."[2] and Roger Eatwell: "Tyndall had been active since the late 1950s in a variety of overtly neo-Nazi groups."[3] Fences&Windows 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have again removed Category:Neo-nazis from this page, without giving a reason, and I see zero discussion from you on the Talk page. Since three different editors have now reverted your removal, it's time for you to discuss this. The alternative is ultimately to be blocked for persistent edit-warring, and I leave that choice up to you. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have read all his writings and met people from Tyndall's era and there was nothing Nazi in the days of his leadership of the BNP. The Guardian would say that because it is left-wing just like the media also says that David Duke is KKK every time. I did not see anything Nazi in Tyndall's writings while being leader of the NF and the BNP just because he wanted forced repatriation.

Forget The Guardian, I found two academics who characterise Tyndall as a Neo-Nazi. Personal opinion is not something that we use in editing. We rely wholly on sources, not our own views. You need to read Wikipedia's policies more carefully. Fences&Windows 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two academics are perhaps speaking from a liberal view, the same sort of bad press David Duke receives.

They're reliable sources, so we go with what they say. Find some other reliable sources, don't just complain about the sources I've provided. You need to re-read Wikipedia's policies if you're going to continue making edits, as asserting that your own viewpoint of sympathy to white nationalism is the correct one isn't going to get you very far. Fences&Windows 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proper citations for your claims that named individuals are PPCs for the BNP. "I received an email" or "I got a newsletter" are inadequate for claims that could be seen as pejorative by many. DuncanHill (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and in relation to the issue I raise above, WP:BLP is not negotiable, and neither is WP:OR. You've been here long enough to have become used to our policies and guidelines, and a review of your contribs show that up to a point, you are prepared to comply with them ("Befehl ist Befehl", as one might say), but presently you are on very thin ice and are in danger of being blocked as a single-purpose account unless you begin providing reliable sources and discuss your disputed edits with other editors. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about that you contact southeast@bnp.org.uk, and you will know everything

No. See WP:BURDEN. Your edits, your responsibility. Rodhullandemu 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to John Tyndall (politician), you will be blocked from editing.

I advised you yesterday to discuss removing this category on the article's Talk page; you haven't done that, and it's about time you did. Rodhullandemu 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use your own knowledge in editing articles. This is original research, and as such it is not verifiable. We cannot use such edits. You may well have spoken to a friend of the subject of the article, but while your personal communication with them could be used for a blog post, it is not OK for Wikipedia. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia's core policies in this manner, you will end up getting yourself blocked. Please start using reliable sources, and stop using your personal knowledge and opinions. Fences&Windows 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your recent edits to David Duke do not conform to our policies. ClovisPt (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you added Cwmduad to the Communities of Carmarthenshire template? It's not listed as a community on the Carmarthenshire County Council's list, and, in fact, Cwmduad lies within Cynwyl Elfed Community. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NatDemUK just a note to remind you that when editing election boxes for the 2010 UK election it is Wikipedia policy to place all candidates in the order they appear on the ballot paper, that is to say alphabetically by surname. Thank you - Galloglass 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Labour, the Welsh Liberal Democrats and the Wales Green Party all operate as semi-autonomous sections of their respective national parties, with candidates standing under their own labels in Wales. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am talking about the parties that compete in the Westminster constituencies. If you click on Welsh Labour, Welsh Liberal Democrats it will take you to the pages about the parties in the Welsh Assembly.

They are both Assembly and Westminster parties -- if you look at the Welsh Lib Dems page for example, it lists MPs and Lords who sit in Westminster. Labour PPCs in Wales stand under the Welsh Labour name. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Simon Rose (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -Erik 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Le Mesurier (talk • contribs)

Hi

This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion regarding the characters sexuality at Talk: Syed Masood. Please join in the discussion there --5 albert square (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop removing Syed Masood from Category: Fictional gay males? There is consensus on the talk page that the character is gay as those are the words that came direct from his mouth when he spoke to Zainab. This is also referenced in the article, so it is properly cited that he is gay and this is what the article should read. With you reverting the edits you are actually in breach of the three revert rule as you seem to be edit warring and you risk being reported for it --5 albert square (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Pilif12p 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British National Party. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your edit comments are also breaking WP:CIVIL and you have a clear conflict of interest. Use the talk page. 3RR does not have to be within a 24 hour period, and you will be reported the next time you remove those categories without agreement. --Snowded ^TALK 10:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 31 hours, for continued edit-warring; consensus is against you. Accept it or take it to dispute resolution.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 21:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to British National Front, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Blogspot? Please don't insult our general intelligence of reliable sources. This is self-published opinion, at best, and pure polemic. In short, unless you can find a better source, it doesn't belong here. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have gone to a lot of trouble converting initials to first names in the BNP and NF election results pages. Please read the note I've added to the talk pages for each article. I am concerned about two things. While I do not doubt the good faith of your edits in this respect, I would point out that the first names are unsourced. A while back, when deletion of the pages was proposed, one criticism was the lack of citations. This was sorted by sourcing all information to either national newspapers which print complete results or to the BBC or other reliable sources. Unfortunately, none of the first names you have given has been sourced and it is doubly worrying because the sources are still given as those I mentioned - which do not give first names. It is very likely that you are correct in most cases (but I'm willing to bet that Ron is really Ronald, Andy is really Andrew etc), but without sources.........! Emeraude (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Scott McLean (BNP). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott McLean (BNP). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the text in the article because it was blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV. Please refrain from stating personal opinion masked as general truth about Christianity, Islam, terrorism, etc. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British National Party. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting incredibly pissed-off that the BNP is being labelled as "Holocaust denial" and "anti-Semitic" when there clearly is no proof that it is and that is why I am getting rid of those categories.

You have been deleting categories from the BNP article in defiance of the talk page consensus. You have already been warned about this and if you continue I intend to make a request at ANI for you to be topic banned. Please consider this fair warning. --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I have done that is for the simple reason is that you cannot label a political party like the BNP as anti-Semitic when it has no hostile views towards Jews based on their ethnicity. This is a lie propagated by the Left, so get rid of those categories NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE I'LL SLICE YA!!

Its properly referenced and agreed on the talk page. You need to calm down and that final phrase should be deleted with an apology, its enough to get you a block. --Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for continued edit-warring, for which you have previously been blocked, and the above threat, which is totally unacceptable. It could have been longer- much longer.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 20:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note here and we can discuss it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see much harm, it just seems to tell moronic extremists to get off my page.

In a very extreme and dickish way. Fix it please. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more, not less, likely to attract edits like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic of userpages, please do not leave messages for other users (like Cosmic Latte) on their userpages. Leave the messages on the talkpages. It's what they're for.

To change the subject, I think you might feel more at ease on Metapedia (dot org), a non-affiliated project. DS (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked on Metapedia

Your user page (again)[edit]

Hi,

I've been asked to look at your user page. I've removed a chunk of it and tagged the rest in line with our user page guidelines [4]. Quick explanation:

Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia anyone can edit. Some of your views will clearly be extremely objectionable to many people, but if you edit appropriately that's what is asked for, beyond that your views are your business and nobody elses. Appropriate editing doesn't just mean editing our articles properly. It also means engaging in discussions properly and treating other users - even thouse of very different views - with respect.

To underline that, in the outside world and on other sites you can avoid people you disapprove of. Here you can't. You will have to co-edit with other admirers of White supremacy, nationalism, fascists, and the like... but also co-edit with ordinary people, ethnic minorities, LGBT (alternate sexualities) and all kinds of people. You will need to treat them each with respect here, that's our site norm. We don't take a view on your life outside this site when you edit, but in the same way you will need to leave that sort of thing "at the door". When you edit here, it's got to be in line with our policies and guidelines which require respect for all users (you can dislike people and still be respectful or disagree), no soapboxing or advocacy and put the encyclopedia above any personal motives. Outside the site you can of course disagree completely.

I have deleted a chunk of your user page because it is not respectful of other users, and tagged the rest as a user page in the normal way. I notice you have mainly avoided blocks and other issues, and hope this will help explain the removal and help you continue editing well in future. If you need to ask anything please do of course.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard: Ban proposal (User:NatDemUK). Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you were afforded the opportunity to respond: you should have been notified at the onset (strictly as a courtesy). Your responses themselves, however, are unlikely to help your case at all - in fact, you've hurt it badly with both comments you have made so far. This is a community project, and those who cannot follow the rules get removed from it. I am currently at Oppose on technical grounds only, as I believe in escalating blocks before a ban. Your next block would be longer than a week (provided you don't sway everyone there to ban you) - you could even be indefinitely blocked for your next offense, if serious enough. If you want to remain here (provided it's not too late), you're really going to want to resist the urge to attack other editors. If you persist... don't be surprised at what happens. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. N419BH 00:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. N419BH 01:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NatDemUK, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NatDemUK and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:NatDemUK during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why are you so full of hate?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I hate the way society has been poisoned by liberals

What do you mean?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To edit Wikipedia, you need to leave your hatred at the door. You can hate liberals all you like in your private life, but it should never show in your editing. Your problem is that you allow your personal views to intrude into your edits, and I did warn you about this. If you're going to edit here, you're going to have to collaboratively edit with people from all different backgrounds and countries. Wikipedia is not the place to wage campaigns against people you dislike or to promote an ideology. There are people I dislike, but I don't feel the need to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack them.

You might still not get banned by the discussion at WP:AN. If so, are you ready to acknowledge where you went wrong, wipe the slate clean, and edit neutrally using only reliable sources and not use your personal opinion in editing? Fences&Windows 00:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My views must be heard or else we will be doomed. I hate the liberals who shove degeneracy down our throats such as political correctness, multiculturalism, homosexuality and pornography. It is destroying Western Europe.

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 14 days, for continuing to edit-war over categories at British National Party without discussing at talkpage despite two previous blocks for the same behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Since you cannot currently post at that page, you may post here and I or another editor will transfer it to WP:AN. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, the following topic ban was enacted -

NatDemUK is topic banned from all edits and articles related to race or politics, broadly construed.

This topic ban is indefinite, and may be enforced via blocks at the discretion of attending administrators.

This can be appealed to the community or the ban appeals subcommittee, but I would reccomend waiting at least six months before doing so.

If you have any questions, please let me know. –xeno^talk 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal against that stupid and politically motivated ban. Most of your edits are useful. --Dezidor (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except the "politically motivated" edits. Hence the topic ban. Good talk... Doc9871 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars over categories could be reason for category ban in some topics, not for topic ban. --Dezidor (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I defended him from a site ban (policy reasons only), especially as he wasn't currently blocked then for even "pissing into the wind". Topic ban? He's getting off easy, my friend. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about stupid and politically motivated topic ban and now he was blocked indefinite for editing his talk page. There is something rotten at English Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the reason that given your latest talkpage posting, it is clear that you are not here to contribute collegially. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:37, 9 September 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. I see the posting below; you will need to give a more cogent reason than that. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:43, 20 September 2010 (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.

There is no reason to block me at all, I have no idea why this has happened.

• Blocking admin: after being topic banned from all edits concerning race and/or politics, they posted this here. Not only a topic ban violation, but clearly not the edit of a useful editor. Hence the indef block. I would be opposed to an unblock, but I think any discussion about one would have to take place at WP:ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur; my decline was merely on the basis of the nature of the request. Having looked through his edits in some detail, I would also oppose an unblock. I feel that this is an editor we do not need here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]