User talk:Hexenjagd

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).

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

Request reason:

I am aware that i was warned a few times but those werent even vandalism the stuff was just some unsourced information that the other editors might have thought was vandalism im not a vandal if you look at my contributions you will see that i have made many Positive contributions to pages i think they are talking about the pages Mike Whitehead and Pedro Rizzo the Mike Whitehead page had no source although the information was correct google "Mike Whitehead arrested" also i put a source on the Pedro Rizzo page and there was an Italian-Brazilian category link at the bottom of Rizzo's page before i added it at the top and i also changed the bout orders to what they are on Sherdog.com if unlblocked i would not continue to put unsourced information on pages i understand what i did was wrong and want to continue to make positive contributions to Wikipedia if my block is upheld then i atleast would like someone to put an experation date on the block instead of indefinite. Please and Thanks.

Decline reason:

I'm afraid you still don't seem to even understand why you were blocked. This request reads like you are just grasping at straws trying to pull the right one and get unblocked. We're not going to dicker with you about the time frame. If you can demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and how to avoid a similar situation in the future you can be unblocked right away. If you can't understand why you were blocked then we can't lift the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 21 June 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.

|decline= From your unblock request, it sounds like you don't think there is anything wrong with adding information that will reflect badly on someone, with no source, to the encyclopedia, and that makes me think that, if I unblocked you, you would think it was okay to do that again. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

I won't opine on your unblock request, but I will note that you were indeed warned many times about your actions, according to your talk page's edit history here, in which you deleted all warnings given (which is virtually the same as acknowledging them). –MuZemike 01:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little confusing to have to search through your talk page for messages you've removed. Most Wikipedia editors don't blank material from their talk page- they just periodically archive them when they get too long. You can see my talk page for an example of what that looks like, if you like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but I agree with this block and also the reasons the block were upheld. That being said, I don't think this user is a vandal. He has made positive contributions but needs to learn how to use edit summaries and sources. Adding large amounts of unsourced information (especially to blp articles) with no explanation as to what you are doing, will get you blocked. Just how it is. Removing multiple warnings from your talk page without response doesn't help your case either. BrendanFrye (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to become eligible for editing again, it would be a good idea if you would follow instructions and correctly make requests. After your first unblock request was denied, if you wanted to request to be unblocked again you were to make a new {{unblock}} request, not putz around with the existing one as was stated on the page before you messed around with it earlier today. --13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I understand that the edits i made to the pages Pedro Rizzo and Mike Whitehead were wrong i should not add unsourced information and i apologize, Especially if it makes them look bad, I will not continue to make these types of edits in the future if i am unblocked.}}

I'm of the opinion that we chalk this one up to inexperience, and unblock the account. AGF, and all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Agree with Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry that this user be unblocked. No one seems to have given you a welcome template, which might have assisted you with some of the Wikipedia policies - I will add one after this unblock.

Request handled by: Ronhjones ^(Talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Hexenjagd! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A couple reminders. Please use edit summaries and be sure to cite a source when adding new information (such as upcoming fights). Also, using the preview button is highly recommended so that you can correct mistakes and submit a single edit, thus not cluttering up edit histories. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious... is there a reason you are unable to make a single edit to articles with a filled out edit summary? I mean, if there is a good reason that's one thing. But to continue to do it after repeated suggestions and no comments.... it's bothersome, especially after just coming of a block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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. --SineBot (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hexenjagd. You have new messages at TreyGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reported for vandalism[edit]

Fine, you want to ignore the warnings and continue your unsourced edits. You've been reported for vandalism.[1] 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've chosen to ignore the last six warnings you've received for the same type of edits that you agreed not to make during your previous unblock, I've reinstated the block. Kuru (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They werent the same types of edits.Hexenjagd (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i wasn't aware that adding a fighters reach needed a source.[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't aware that a fighters reach needed a source i did not mean to vandalize the pages Ricardo Romero, Brendan Schaub or Seth Petruzelli.

Decline reason:

Oh yes. You removed a warning about this here and then continued to add unsourced figures here. Since you are unwilling to edit Wikipedia according to our community standards, you will remain blocked. Sandstein 06:49, 4 July 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.

You were told many times that you needed to provide sources. You chose to ignore those warnings and continued to add unsourced info. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything needs a source. You've been repeatedly told to read WP:CITE and WP:Reliable Sources. You failed to do so, now you've been blocked. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandstein pointed out with this edit, where did you get 76 in from? How did you know that it was 76 in? I could have written 86 in. Someone else could have written 51 in or any number in that information box. This is why information needs to be backed by reliable sources. Davtra ^(talk) 07:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Not seen a single source/link for any fighter reach ever maybe height or weight but never reach. Hexenjagd (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Davtra| By watching the UFC 116 prelims on Spike TV but like i said i didnt know that type of information needed a source. Hexenjagd (talk) 23:34, 4 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I wasnt aware that the types of edits i made were wrong as i have never seen a fighters reach have a source or link so i may have ignored a few warning given to me but i now understand why i was blocked and will not continue add to a fighters infobox without a source.Hexenjagd (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. You made a similar promise the last time around, and yet here we are again back at square one. This is your ~~third~~ second block since June 15. Your removal of warnings and block notices from this talk page suggests that you really don't intend to change your behavior. I see no reason why you should be allowed to contribute again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 8 July 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.

This seems to be the same promise that you made last time you were blocked. The fact that you removed quite a few warnings looks like you were trying to hide your poor editing history. How do I know that you'll adhere to your word this time? Kuru (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kuru| I learned from the errors i made last time and havent made them again i have learned from my mistakes. Hexenjagd (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you did make the same mistakes again. If you can't understand the problematic nature of your edits, how can you give your word that the issue will not present itself again? I'm afraid that releaseing this block will lead to the exact same situtaion and disrupt the productive work of other editors, so I'll pass. I will leave the unblock request up for another administrator to review; if someone else can translate or mentor, feel free. Kuru (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kuru| They were both for unsourced infomation but i was blocked before for putting unsourced info that may have made a fighter look bad and havent made that error since before i didnt understand why it was important to have a source for a fighters reach but if i am unblocked i will not add unsourced info to fighter infoboxes. Hexenjagd (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try this, can you agree to add or change material only if you include a reference that meets our reliable source criteria? This means every edit; I don't care if there was not a source before. Kuru (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely like to punctuate to Hexenjagd, that any information added to article should be sourced. Not just information placed in infoboxes as you mention in your last response. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of rules. And those rules have details. For example, even in the "always give sources for information," this user didn't know that-- then, after being introduced to the rule, thought it only applied to negative information-- then, after being corrected, thinks it only applies to infoboxes. If this user will not (or can not) read a rule or part of a rule and follow it without being blocked, we will have to block him many hundreds of times before he has mastered even Wikipedia's basic rules. Is it worth the effort? I oppose unblocking this user, because it seems unlikely to be worth the extra work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not continue to add any unsourced information if unblocked. Hexenjagd (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston| I'm pretty sure this is my second block i could be wrong though. Hexenjagd (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The first block was an indef on June 18, lifted on June 23. The second block was indefinite on July 4 and is the one still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 8 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I will not contunue to add unsourced information if unblocked.

Decline reason:

Four administrators have reviewed this situation, and all four are opposed to you being unblocked and remain unconvinced that you understand why you were blocked in the first place. May I suggest the standard offer to blocked users as your next course of action? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 10 July 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.

Hexenjagd, just a FYI, people have been blocked from editing their own talk page due to making too many, insufficient unblock requests. At no point have you really shown that you plan to keep your promise (as you have continued your actions after your first block) nor have you shown anyone that you understand why and how to add sourced material to Wikipedia. A simple unblock request that you put above is likely, in my opinion, to get a quick decline and potentially followed by a block of editing this page. Again, just my opinion, you're not helping yourself out with this situation. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I hinted when I declined to unblock before, there seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. I remain unconvinced that this user actually has the capacity or the intention to refrain from improper editing. He was allowed to talk his way out of previous indef block and look what happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Beeblebrox on this one, I unblocked last time as (s)he appeared to be a novice editor, and had little or no assistance on how to edit, so I unblocked and included the welcome menu with the links to useful policies - in the hope that they would read those policies and understand what is required. It seems that that idea was not taken on board. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero desire to unblock. A couple of terse responses do not convince me that there will not be further disruption. Since I'm the blocking admin, I will bow out and leave it to others to review. Kuru (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what i have done wrong and didnt make negative or unconstructive edits after i was blocked the first time if i am unblocked i will use the edit summary and include sources. Hexenjagd (talk) 03:15, 10 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I have learned from my mistakes and have a better understanding of the rules i will not continue to make unsourced and unconstructive edits to wikipedia

Decline reason:

You said that you understood what you did wrong the LAST time you were blocked, and you returned to cause more problems. I remain unconvinced. Jayron32 05:06, 16 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have learned from my mistakes and have a better understanding of the rules i will not continue to make unsourced and unconstructive edits to wikipedia I was blocked once before and didnt continue to make those type of edits if i am unblocked i will not make ANY edits without sources i hope i can continue to make positive constructive contributions to Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You get blocked, say you learned your lesson, get blocked again, say you learned your lesson, and then get blocked again, and say you learned your lesson. This is not baseball: there's no "3 strikes". You have clearly shown that your promises mean zero - once we have lost trust in you, it's hard to get it back. Time will tell - come back in 6 months, make sure you do not try to user or create another account in the meantime; do not edit anonymously. If you can do that, then come back and actually SHOW that you understand how to properly edit, you may have a chance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 16 July 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.

@ BWilkins| i was only blocked once before this is my second block not my third. Hexenjagd (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is only my second block not my third.[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have learned from my mistakes and have a better understanding of the rules i will not continue to make unsourced and unconstructive edits to wikipedia I was blocked once before and didnt continue to make those type of edits if i am unblocked i will not make ANY edits without sources i hope i can continue to make positive constructive contributions to Wikipedia, Last time i was blocked i said that i would not make unsourced edits to wikipedia but thought it only applied to biographies etc but now i undertand that ALL information needs a source and will not continue to edit pages without a source if unblocked.

Decline reason:

You said the same thing last time and it didn't mean anything then. You were told to give it a while, and now you're just repeating yourself. Please do not submit any further requests unless you have something new to add besides repeating the same promises you've broken and been making repeatedly since. - Vianello (Talk) 03:19, 17 July 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.

You claim that you thought you weren't supposed to make unsourced edits to biographies following your first block. However, when you were unblocked you made this unsourced edit to Kimbo Slice and I gave you this warning. You followed that with several other unsourced edits to biographies and received warnings from Jeff G. (talk · contribs). You blanked the warnings most every time, thereby acknowledging the warnings, but continued the behavior.

An admin has given you the Wikipedia:Standard offer for attempting to get your editing privileges back and you are apparently refusing to even follow that. How can anyone expect for you to follow guidelines and policies for citing sources? If it were my decision, the unblock request would be declined and editing privileges for your own talk page would be revoked for abuse of the unblock process, at least temporarily. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Treygeek| yes you did worn me so i went back and added a source. Hexenjagd (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]