User talk:ILoveSky

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, ILoveSky, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Be kind to others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself
• Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Claritas (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Free weekend

I have nominated Free weekend, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free weekend. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dwayne was here! ^♫ 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 15:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

hello?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I believe I'm blocked, I keep getting this thing on my talk page and it won't let me edit the Battlefield 2142 article.

Decline reason:

I'm afraid you have been getting some rather poor advice below, this block has nothing to do with your ip address and everything to do with your editing pattern. Your best bet is to email the ban appeals subcommittee. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (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.

• See contribs to verify whether or not you are blocked. If there's a light red banner above your contributions, you are. mechamind90 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is indeed a red box. What should I do? I went through the Wikipedia rules to see if I broke any, but I can't find anything.--ILoveSky (T | C) 18:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps change the unblock request to state that you're not a sockpuppet and ask them to check where the account was created? I'm not an expert on this, but I am certain that such a request will be looked into. Currently an admin believes that this is an alternate account for a banned user, but it can't be confirmed yet. mechamind90 18:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't even know what I did wrong, how can I possibly defend myself against a claim or claims I know nothing about?--ILoveSky (T | C) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• If you didn't know, there should not be an indefinite block. Sometimes they apply 24 hour blocks in order to get the attention instead. It also depends on where you created your account. If it was a public building, there is obviously one bad apple that got you caught in this trouble. One of your edits was not trusted, but you state you were not deliberately causing possible harm. mechamind90 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am using dial-up, which gives me a new IP address all the time. However, I was unaware that I was making a bad edit, deliberately or otherwise.--ILoveSky (T | C) 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then you probably "borrowed" a dial-up that was used by Xgmx (banned). Examine the talk page (full protected) and contributions of that user to see if you've unintentionally made any similar errors. Any user who has made edits similar to a user (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) and they cannot edit their talk page is used for comparison. mechamind90 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that this is yet another sockpuppet of the banned user User:Xgmx. There wasn't even an IP check - I requested such a check but the blocking administrator found that the evidence that ILoveSky is yet another Xgmx sock was overwhelming (and I don't disagree at all). --bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Chances are that you may have blocked an entire house rather than banned a user if this user is not a sockpuppet. mechamind90 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the only person who lives at this address, so I doubt that's the case. I purchased this home last Fall, but the previous owners didn't have any kids, so I doubt that is the case.--ILoveSky (T | C) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then I'll just leave it to the assumption it is a "borrowed" IP address. Good luck. mechamind90 19:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I'm sure this whole thing will just blow over, because I didn't do anything wrong and I'm not this xgmx kid. Though, it is a shame that this witchhunt for some kid has gone on for what two years on here? One would imagine the admin here would get a life, but hey, who am I to judge.--ILoveSky (T | C) 19:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How could someone possibly mistake me from someone who hasn't been here in 2 years?--ILoveSky (T | C) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence? What sort of evidence could there possibly be linking me to some 12 year old kid who hasn't used this site in two years?--ILoveSky (T | C) 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

editing problems, *again*

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I still can't contribute, we went over this yesterday, I am supposed to be able to edit now.

Decline reason:

As a banned user, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. As noted above, your best chance would be to email the ban appeals subcommittee and make a case for why you should be allowed to edit again. GlassCobra 18:49, 18 May 2010 (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 did

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did e-mail them yesterday and they said "this is for major blocks, you should just make an unblock request on your user talk page again, and you'll most likely be unblocked", not exactly in those terms, but more or less, that's what they said

Decline reason:

you have to e-mail them from your main account, which for the record is Xgmx. A sockpuppet of a banned user is not going to be unblocked while the main account is banned. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:09, 18 May 2010 (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.

My guess is that you probably failed to mention that you were a banned user with known sockpuppets. For the record, a formal ban is a major block, and the BASC would have known that. Send the email from your main account as noted above, and also include a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xgmx. GlassCobra 21:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

what?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I told the guy in the e-mail that I was accused of being the user xgmx, and I gave him a record of everything you said. He then told me you guys would unblock me if I requested it. You have no proof whatsoever. Everything is circumstantial. You have zero evidence.

Decline reason:

Your edit history is evidence enough, and quite obvious at that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:04, 19 May 2010 (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.

edit history

Look at my contributions which ones are bad and are "evidence"?--ILoveSky (T | C) 01:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The first one that comes to my mind is this, where you request Xgmx's forum to be whitelisted so that it can be used as an external link. Others are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xgmx/Archive#17 May 2010. GlassCobra 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

what

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

That isn't "xgmx's forum", in fact, there is not a single user there that goes by that name

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=That isn't "xgmx's forum", in fact, there is not a single user there that goes by that name |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=That isn't "xgmx's forum", in fact, there is not a single user there that goes by that name |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=That isn't "xgmx's forum", in fact, there is not a single user there that goes by that name |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}