User talk:NotTfue123

Why are you tagging sock accounts? Praxidicae (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ProLink is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProLink until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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).

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I didn't make any mistake, rather Praxidicae asked about my account which I had abandoned 10 years before.I am banned still, I want to do necessary edits to ProLink so please help. I am here to built wikipedia. NotTfue123 (Talk) 12:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your edits, I think it's reasonable for administrators to establish the status of your previous account before unblocking you. Please disclose your prior account. If you are uncomfortable doing so on-wiki, you may use the unblock ticket request system to send a private email. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #24654 was submitted on Apr 09, 2019 13:19:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Yunshui 雲水!! The thing isn't that. I had good account standing account but I forgot it's username and password. But, I decided to make new account and contribute. Understand the problem. I would have done that but there is no chance that I can recover that account. I can to use my creativity, skills and talent which will contribute to make wikipedia more better. NotTfue123 (Talk) 13:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A full list of former administrators can be found at Wikipedia:Former administrators; perhaps that will jog your memory. We do not need your password, only your username. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Yunshui is remember to write article on

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

NotTfue123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Not provided

• Blocking administrator: not provided.

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I remember myself to be user:DanMS and I anoymously used to edit an article Draft:CAA Health & Dental Insurance. Then, I, later on, get that the work I have done is under violation User:Aaron Brenneman who I think is now retired or may be in condition like me!! So, if I am not unblock!! That would be the serious problem because that may effect my WIKIPEDIAN Career.. User:Mabdul also indirectly helped me and so on. If I can recover my password, that would be best things. NotTfue123 (Talk) 15:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your claim of being User:DanMS is patently false. You have now been checkuser blocked as a sock of Gaurav456; I've revoked talk page access to prevent further time wasting. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

• This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)