User talk:Rohedin

June 2010[edit]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to the page User talk:Rohedin in this edit, misusing rollback to call placement of a talkback template "vandalism". Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. — Jeff G. ツ 15:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in User talk:Nimicitor. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 16:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Jeff G,'s message, can I point out that even if a user had received warnings (including "final" ones), then they can blank their talk page - the only things they can't remove are declined block requests (although these can be removed after a block has been lifted). If a user blanks their page, removing warnings, this is saying that they have read and understood the warning. If you continue to edit war like this, you are risking being blocked for edit warring. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. — Jeff G. ツ 16:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson[edit]

Joke opposes are OK in the final few hours of an RfA, but as a rule, they are not so good at the beginning of an RfA.

May I suggest that you remove it? It's your choice of course, but RfA is a serious discussion, and while I am sure that JamesBWatson will do well, joke questions/opposes make it look like it is not a serious discussion, in my opinion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nimicitor and WP:BLANKING[edit]

If a user wants to blank all or part of their talk page, there are few reasons to revert them. I don't see any of those reasons being met on this user's talk page. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

President of India[edit]

I think you are being a bit too quick with your revert button at times. Could you please explain to me why you reverted as vandalism here? --Onorem ♠Dil 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with your use of Twinkle. That edit was not vandalism. If you cannot use Twinkle more carefully, I will revoke your access to it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked an entire section from the page, does that not qualify as a form of vandalism? Rohedin ^TALK 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He made a new page for that material and linked to it from the article. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please request a password change immediately[edit]

From what I can tell, the edits you claim you did not do are done from a different geographical location (Near Milwaukee). I'll keep an eye on your account, and if it edits from that location again I will block it as compromised. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your recent edits to WP:ANI. It looks like you are still not in control of your account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in control of my account. No foregin I.Ps have sailed on this account since the ANI topic. Rohedin ^TALK 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking this account as a compromised one -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.P check me, I am not compromised. Rohedin ^TALK 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for either being a compromised account, or for vandalising. Either way, it is blocked. 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:22, 16 June 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).

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

Request reason:

Regardless of what you think, this account is not compromised. You can scan the account's fingerprints until the cows jump over the moon. The FEGELEIN edit was a mere reference to a situation in the movie Downfall, it was an unneeded edit indeed, but it was not meant to be an act of vandalism.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, this is exactly what someone would say if they actually had compromised the account. You were very clear at WP:ANI that your account had been compromised and the relevant policy, WP:GOTHACKED, is equally clear; it says "we will have to leave it blocked.". Accounting4Taste:talk 00:44, 16 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have the password and e-mail changed, and I can prove that I am the owner of the account via my bot TotalDramaBot. I will feed data into the bot and it's output will be placed here the instant this unblock request enters my talk page.

Decline reason:

But what if the bot and this account use the same password? (X! · talk) · @080 · 00:54, 16 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.

OK, let's slow down and not do something unwise. First, change your bot's password. Then, hold off on the unblock requests for a bit. I'll see if Coren is around. If those edits were you, they were unhelpful but not blockworthy. If they were from Milwaukee, then we have a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rohedin ^TALK 01:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, did you just post the password again? I give up. If you're going to revert someone trying to protect your privacy, I'll let someone else try to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The password was changed before I made the request. Rohedin ^TALK 01:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. Rohedin ^TALK 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Step one: Stop. Think. Go slow. Step two: remove this unblock request, no one is going to unblock without some kind of checkuser info. Step three: make an edit on your bot's talk page with your bot account, so a checkuser can verify you didn't lose control of that account too. Step four, wait until Coren gets back online (which means not editing for some length of time without doing something impatient), and let him check the IP like he did last night. Step five, if it really is you, don't post weird things on ANI right after having your account compromised. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for Coren. He's not online now. I suggest doing something else tonight, all should be sorted when he next logs on. FWIW, I'm fairly sure this is Rohedin, not a hacker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same user

There is no indication that this account has been used by anyone else since my previous message, and no reason to think that this user is not (now) in control of their account. Rohedin, please be careful in the future — posting passwords is never a good idea. I'm not involved in the original block, but there is no reason based on checkuser why you should not be unblocked. I'll leave the rest in the hands of the others who are already here to help you. — Coren ^(talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to an admin reviewing the unblock request: Please first review the relevant ANI thread, WP:ANI#Strange edits that I did not make appear in my contributions. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the contributions of Pickbothmanlol, I can tell you that one edit on ANI shows the user lives in Auburn. I don't live anywhere near in the south and this is merely what it is, a coincidence. Rohedin ^TALK 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he is insisting it is him, that's fine, but then he was just acting disruptively. So if it was him, it's disruptive, block. if it isn't him he's compromised, block. End result is the same.--Crossmr (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Swastika[edit]

The article Swastika you nominated as a WP:Good Article status. Unfortunately, it failed as it needs alot of work. Please see the review page for what needs to be worked on. Please take the time and work on it. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Netscapeubuntu.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Netscapeubuntu.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NW (Talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reblock[edit]

I think it is established that your account was not compromised last night, so I've undone that block. However, after reviewing the comments made by many people at WP:ANI, and your edit history here, it is now clear to me that you are a returning disruptive account, very likely Pickbothmanlol. As such, I've reblocked you indefinitely with this new block rationale. You're aware by now of your unblock request options. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the account was not compromised, it was shared by me and Onelifefreak2007 via e-mail. I suppose you are going to revert my edits to articles I mad OH WAIT. You can't because people besides me have edited on them and that leaves them safe per policy so screw you. Rohedin ^TALK 16:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you got me now, I found a new way to deal with the shit Wikipedia does to block me. I am evolving. Rohedin ^TALK 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See you in 30 million years, then. Talk page access revoked. Rodhull andemu 16:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammy the Seeker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CrackedLeo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:RohPanic.JPG[edit]

The file File:RohPanic.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]