I see you've had 2 warnings about adding unsourced information to articles. Now, you've chosen to add unsourced trivia to Searchlight, Nevada. Will you stop, or will you need to be reported? Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Searchlight, Nevada. I am at least the third editor to remove your zombie game trivia. Aren't you getting the hint that this stuff does not belong in this article? Any further attempts by you to put this in the article without a consensus for its addition will almost certainty result in the suspension of your editing privileges. You are of course welcome to start a discussion about the inclusion of material on the game. The place to do that would be
Talk:Searchlight, Nevada.
John from Idegon (
talk)
07:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did
here.
82.132.238.95 (
talk)
15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop adding gaming trivia to articles: several editors have warned you about this, it's unsourced and inappropriate in serious encyclopedia articles. Your warnings in return are inappropriate and you're on very thin ice in general right now. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant to say "inscrutability" on Magnolia's talk page. Please don't further disrupt wikipedia, bother Magnolia677, or address me under any circumstances until you've built up a respectable body of work. (I closed your ANI comment because it was not comprehensible, and no editor disagreed with my judgment.) Your edits might otherwise seem unconstructive, and grounds for administrative action given the above comments. μηδείς ( talk) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You'll need to assemble your sources, biasing them towards fairly rigorous academic studies, not popular surveys, and you'll need to find an appropriate place for that (short) discussion and provide references. I'd strongly suggest reading the Danish-language article, in the original if you have enough Danish, or at least via machine translation, to get a sense of what Danish speakers, who for the most part are Danes, think is important. People tend to forget that there are many Wikipedias. The article in the Danish WP is a "recommended article," so it's been pretty extensively reviewed and discussed. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dand. Have any new administrators attempted bothering your intelligence?
Sincerely, FDJK001 ( talk) 18:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
Yours truly, FDJK001 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It's quite obvious from your edit history you are here solely to cause disruption. Your addition of scare quotes, twice, to E (mathematical constant) contra Materialscientist was unhelpful. Your recent comment on my talk page was insincere and unwelcome. Your note here trying to revive a dispute between Alansohn and another editor was pure disruption. Any further unhelpful editing will be met with an immediate report at WP:ANI where I am quite sure you'll be given a lengthy block if some admin doesn't beat me to the punch. Do not respond at my talk page, I will be watching here. μηδείς ( talk) 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Reinforcing Medeis's warning, your edits to various mathematical constants are inappropriate. The note left for Alansohn is trolling, and the conversation in the section immediately above is disturbing. We're here to write an encyclopedia. If you keep trying to pick or incite disputes, you will be blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Either edit constructively or expect to have your privileges on this project revoked. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Dandtiks69 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Let's see the arguments that say I'm a sockpuppet of Fdjk.
Conclusion - an extremely excessive block based off of personal attacks, baseless arguments, and complete incredibility.
Here's my request for an unblock. Dandtiks69 ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:50, 20 July 2015 (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.
Dandtiks69 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Shared IP addresses shouldn't count for sockpuppetry (two months ago I used the same computer as user: FDJK001). Dandtiks69 ( talk) 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, if we can't tell you two apart, we have to default to blocking, even if it's not a sockpuppetry it's meatpuppetry. Max Semenik ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2015 (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.
Dandtiks69 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Question at this point: I don't know if I'm supposed to use the unblock template this way, but surely there has to be a way to prove I'm not a sockpuppet, given Wikipedia's high organizational architecture, right? I can't think of a real case of suckpuppetry I've been involved in, other than my messages towards my fellow friend, and even then that was in good faith. Dandtiks69 ( talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In answer to your question, no there isn't really a way to prove your not a sock puppet. As a reviewing admin, I take note of the technical and behavioural evidence in making a decision. In your case, the evidence suggests there is a probability that sock puppetry was involved. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:48, 30 August 2015 (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.
I see you've had 2 warnings about adding unsourced information to articles. Now, you've chosen to add unsourced trivia to Searchlight, Nevada. Will you stop, or will you need to be reported? Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Searchlight, Nevada. I am at least the third editor to remove your zombie game trivia. Aren't you getting the hint that this stuff does not belong in this article? Any further attempts by you to put this in the article without a consensus for its addition will almost certainty result in the suspension of your editing privileges. You are of course welcome to start a discussion about the inclusion of material on the game. The place to do that would be
Talk:Searchlight, Nevada.
John from Idegon (
talk)
07:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did
here.
82.132.238.95 (
talk)
15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop adding gaming trivia to articles: several editors have warned you about this, it's unsourced and inappropriate in serious encyclopedia articles. Your warnings in return are inappropriate and you're on very thin ice in general right now. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant to say "inscrutability" on Magnolia's talk page. Please don't further disrupt wikipedia, bother Magnolia677, or address me under any circumstances until you've built up a respectable body of work. (I closed your ANI comment because it was not comprehensible, and no editor disagreed with my judgment.) Your edits might otherwise seem unconstructive, and grounds for administrative action given the above comments. μηδείς ( talk) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You'll need to assemble your sources, biasing them towards fairly rigorous academic studies, not popular surveys, and you'll need to find an appropriate place for that (short) discussion and provide references. I'd strongly suggest reading the Danish-language article, in the original if you have enough Danish, or at least via machine translation, to get a sense of what Danish speakers, who for the most part are Danes, think is important. People tend to forget that there are many Wikipedias. The article in the Danish WP is a "recommended article," so it's been pretty extensively reviewed and discussed. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dand. Have any new administrators attempted bothering your intelligence?
Sincerely, FDJK001 ( talk) 18:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
Yours truly, FDJK001 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It's quite obvious from your edit history you are here solely to cause disruption. Your addition of scare quotes, twice, to E (mathematical constant) contra Materialscientist was unhelpful. Your recent comment on my talk page was insincere and unwelcome. Your note here trying to revive a dispute between Alansohn and another editor was pure disruption. Any further unhelpful editing will be met with an immediate report at WP:ANI where I am quite sure you'll be given a lengthy block if some admin doesn't beat me to the punch. Do not respond at my talk page, I will be watching here. μηδείς ( talk) 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Reinforcing Medeis's warning, your edits to various mathematical constants are inappropriate. The note left for Alansohn is trolling, and the conversation in the section immediately above is disturbing. We're here to write an encyclopedia. If you keep trying to pick or incite disputes, you will be blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Either edit constructively or expect to have your privileges on this project revoked. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Dandtiks69 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Let's see the arguments that say I'm a sockpuppet of Fdjk.
Conclusion - an extremely excessive block based off of personal attacks, baseless arguments, and complete incredibility.
Here's my request for an unblock. Dandtiks69 ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:50, 20 July 2015 (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.
Dandtiks69 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Shared IP addresses shouldn't count for sockpuppetry (two months ago I used the same computer as user: FDJK001). Dandtiks69 ( talk) 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, if we can't tell you two apart, we have to default to blocking, even if it's not a sockpuppetry it's meatpuppetry. Max Semenik ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2015 (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.
Dandtiks69 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Question at this point: I don't know if I'm supposed to use the unblock template this way, but surely there has to be a way to prove I'm not a sockpuppet, given Wikipedia's high organizational architecture, right? I can't think of a real case of suckpuppetry I've been involved in, other than my messages towards my fellow friend, and even then that was in good faith. Dandtiks69 ( talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In answer to your question, no there isn't really a way to prove your not a sock puppet. As a reviewing admin, I take note of the technical and behavioural evidence in making a decision. In your case, the evidence suggests there is a probability that sock puppetry was involved. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:48, 30 August 2015 (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.