Jump to content

User talk:213.107.74.132

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.107.74.132 (talk) at 13:08, 19 September 2011 (→‎Simple Wikipedia: Not true reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 12:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QUICK TIP

Add four tildes at the end of your message. It automatically makes your signature. Like this:

Hi Anna. I like bunnies too. ~~~~

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion

"You should change this to List of bus models." You should raise this at talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 213.107.74.132. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk#Rename page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- John of Reading (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bugatti Veyron Super Sport. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Topher385 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more disruptive edits

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

At least twice today you have posted to talk pages and tried to forge the signature of other users; here and here. This is not permitted. You were caught out, of course, and SineBot spotted your forged signature, which is presumably what prompted you to revert the second of these. (The first was a warning to an editor who hadn't edited for more that four months, and you'd been warned earlier about placing inappropriate warnings.) These are just two more in a string of disruptive edits, including your string of frivolous proposals at WP:AFC/R. You have been warned. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For how long will I be blocked? A week?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you for 48 hours for wide-ranging disruption in many ways. The trigger here was your assumption that the edit you reverted to Multiple guitar players is completely unacceptable. WP:AGF is policy, and the edit contained an edit summary that noted a reason for the edit. If we need a second trigger, your reversion of one of two edits by the same editor within a few minutes to User talk:Aniketb.elec is also poor. Based on your own edit history, you of all people should know that editors sometimes quickly change their minds or alter a comment. How can an editor possibly "vandalize" his own comments? DMacks (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I edited Multiple guitar players is to be nice. It had a tag on the edit, so I thought the best thing to do was to revert (what I thought was) vandalism, and references removed. I'm really sorry, it was done in good faith. Do you understand? I did it to be nice, but I made a mistake. Thank you, and I really hope I will be unblocked. For a minute, I thought 50.9.1.182 was doing something bad. By the time I realised, it was too late.

Decline reason:

This appears to simply be long term trolling on your part. There is no question that you are 85.12.88.17; I've adjusted the block length to reflect this. Kuru (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2011 (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.


Why can't I get the unblock to work?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock template works. You need to wait for an available administrator that wants to review your unblock request to come by and review it. The admins are like the rest of the editors here, volunteers. They come when they want to not when you necesariy waht them to come. GB fan 16:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you

This is you, right?

I remember all these strange Urinary bladder etc. edits ages ago. [1] [2], and tons more pointless edits.

Quite a well-worded unblock request just now. An improvement over this.

You were blocked three times using that IP. The last time, you stated "...I won't make any silly edits, I will make good edits and help Wikipedia flourish, but only if you can give me one more chance to show wikipedia what good I can do, and you'll wish you never blocked me. I've turned good, and PROMISE no to make wikipedia bad. So please unblock me for the sake of Wikipedia..."

You add almost nothing to this project, while causing great disruption requesting nonsense redirects, warring, nuissance talk page posts, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

I don't think you are here to help the project. I think you are here to be disruptive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is shared by many users. I did not make that edit.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Are you saying none of the edits under 85.12.88.17 are you? Really? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are. But as it is a shared public network, that particular one was not mine.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


One?

  • 213.107.74.132
  • Red dot of death
  • Yellow light of death
  • Deal or No Deal (UK game show) ‎
  • Urinary bladder ‎
  • Urination
  • Bus
  • Gran Turismo (PSP) ‎
  • 85.12.88.17
  • Blue Screen of Death
  • Deal or No Deal (UK game show) ‎
  • Urinary bladder ‎
  • Urination
  • Bus
  • Ridge Racer 2 (PSP) ‎

So, the three blocks were for your edits, not another user's, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All mine. I've learent better.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you were blocked using this account to vandalize:
You haven't "learent better". You should not be allowed to edit at Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use 82.198.228.37. The Urinary bladder is just a fluke. Promise. That's not my kind of edit.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. The IP edited:
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare ‎
Bus
School bus ‎
Urinary bladder
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my edits. I never edited COD4:MW promise.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way. Your edits show a pattern of long-term incorrigible trolling and disruption, with very, very few constructive edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how do I have a last chance of all last chances to show that now I will make constructive edits? I'll rollback vandalism, contribute, and I won't need any warnings, as I will be all good.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You've been blocked at least five times. Only a fool would believe you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for the block to expire, and help this project loads. I've thought about the trolling, and decided: You know what: There's no reason for me to do these. In less than 48 hours, I'll do good edits.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82.198.228.37 is in Newcastle.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will I be able to edit once the block expires?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you will be able to edit once the block expires. You can show some dedication to the project by registering an account and only editing under that account name. (You shouldn't do this until your block expires either). GB fan 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Why can't an IP retire?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Retire. Excellent idea. You can do that immediately. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are paying your ISP for a static IP address, this IP address will get reassigned to a new user at some point. At that point anyone else that came on to edit wouldn't be retired. GB fan 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The £64,000 question is when?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is we don't know. It could be 10 minutes from know, it could be weeks from now. It all depends on your ISP. Since we don't know when it will be switched we won't know if you are the person on the other end of the IP at any point in time. GB fan 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no-one reviewing my unblock request?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why an admin hasn't come by and reviewed it yet. Like I told you above, admins are volunteer and they do what they want, when they want. What difference does it make if your unblock request is acted on or not, you said you were just going to wait it out. GB fan 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is GB fan a admin?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I am blocked, can I ask you to do edits for me? Only joking!!!!!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not an admin. GB fan 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a human

Do you like it? Got it off SineBot! It's only a joke--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

82.198.228.37

I have never edited under 82.198.228.37. Some of the edits are totally different. 82.198.228.37 is in Newcastle. 100s of miles/kms away (see whois)--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. 85.12.88.17 was the previous IP. I've corrected it in the block log. Kuru (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6 month block

Why have you blocked for 6 months? IP's change, don't forget!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you change to a different IP address to come back and cause the same problems, it will be blocked. It's not this IP that is blocked for 6 months. It is YOU. --Jayron32 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if the IP changes, and I improve, and help this project?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Please go to http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=20&target=213.107.74.132 to see all the good edits I have started on the Simple English Wikipedia. I'm now doing good edits and will continue to do so for ever. And you wait, and there will be 100s of good edits! So please unblock me, and I'll really help the project, or I'll change IP address and I will do good edits! Promise!

Decline reason:

Lies and competence issues. Even WP:OFFER would be a challenge for you, but feel free to try. Remember, YOU as a person are blocked - editing en.Wikipedia is right out of the question, WP:EVADE will apply (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (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.

Wow! You troll, vandalize and get blocked and simple wikipedia too! Way to sell yourself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see that i've stopped?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. You stopped 27 minutes ago. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped at around 8:00(UTC). But I've stopped for good! Trolling, vandalism, never again! That's history!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are you continuing to troll here on your talk, but now I must thank you for pointing out your fine work at simple wikipedia. With edits like these: [3][4], you have now drawn our attention to whether or not you should be considered a candidate for banishment from WMF entirely on WP:COMPETENCY grounds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Please explan in simple English.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why no?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted vandalism! See this and this.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine makes a barrel of sewage. You are talking about a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if I continue to do good edits?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "what if"? This is an encyclopedia, not a toy. The "good edits" should have happened from the start. If you were a normal user, we would tell you "see WP:OFFER" and come back in at least 6 months. As you have now provided proof that your edits on Simple are even inferior to your edits on en.Wikipedia, even WP:OFFER is pretty much unavailable to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inferior? I've improved. Wait a few days/weeks/months, and there will be 100s of good edits. Visit the link as often as you can!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior must improve first. You must prove you are serious and committed. You have currently proved you are able to make one or two viable edits scattered among dozens of ones that are not. You must prove you are a net good value to wikipedia. Currently you have been a net waste of time. Six months seems like a reasonable time for you to spend working on your behavior (including making nothing but good edits on simple.wp (if they trust you to edit there) and good interactions with others here and there) before we reconsider here. DMacks (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia

If I make 100's of good edits on simple Wikipedia, you'll unblock me, and i'll make 100's more good edits here. I'll admit that I was messing around for a few months, but I've cleaned up my act now! 213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wiki edits

I've made more constructive edits on simple wiki.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made quite a few unconstructive edits on Simple. Constructive edits are few and far between. If I had an account at Simple, I'd right about now be advocating for a block over there, but it seems they are already keeping an eye on you on their own. Huon (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was before 16/09/2011, from 16/09/2011, I have made nothing but good edits that I know of. Any bad ones were not meant to be.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a good edit? I am surprised no one reverted it yet. And the discussion at their admin noticeboard did not read as if they were impressed with your vandalism report of 110.224.177.63, who as far as I can tell had not made any edits. You did revert a little vandalism and create some unsourced stubs (including one where you managed to get the title wrong, oops!), but somehow your past claims that you would only make good edits make it hard to believe that this time you will not immediately revert to your usual behaviour if unblocked. Huon (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with this?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little, except that it's part of an article called "Java (programming language)", not "List of programming languages". Which is precisely why it got reverted. Huon (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clue Bot

Why did someone remove ClueBot iii? This is NOT a human!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shut off the archiving because the user talk page guidelines says that may not be removed. Among those things are current blocks and bans and declined unblock requests from current blocks. CluebotIII was archiving your unblock requests. Since your block is for 6 months there is no reason to allow CluebotIII to continue to run on this page because we would have to extend the archive time out to over 4000 hours to ensure this guideline is followed. If after your block is over you can come back and turn it back on. GB fan 11:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if I behave on Simple wiki, you'll unblock me sooner?????--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be something you will need to ask after behaving for a while. A few days is not enough time. You probably need to spend a month or more doing good edits on simple before you come back and ask for an unblock here. GB fan 12:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe by the end of the month I would of made a few 100's of good edits, and you'll unblock me? How many good edits would I need on simple before you unblock me?20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 750, 1000 or more?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is a set number; the reviewing admin would have to decide, and the quality of the edits surely is as important as the quantity. Dozens of tiny tweaks to the same article are not better than a single edit which makes all the changes at once. More importantly, what you really need to do is convince us that you know what you did wrong in the past, and that, once unblocked, you will not do so again. The latter part is rather difficult because you promised only to make good edits before. Huon (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have relised my previous edits, know how they can damage Wikipedia, and I will never do what I did before. Notice my simple wiki edits? I know my edits were wrong, and have improved. Unblock me, and you'll be STUNNED at my mega improvements.

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=I have relised my previous edits, know how they can damage Wikipedia, and I will ''never'' do what I did before. Notice my simple wiki edits? I know my edits were wrong, and have improved. Unblock me, and you'll be STUNNED at my ''mega'' improvements. |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=I have relised my previous edits, know how they can damage Wikipedia, and I will ''never'' do what I did before. Notice my simple wiki edits? I know my edits were wrong, and have improved. Unblock me, and you'll be STUNNED at my ''mega'' improvements. |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=I have relised my previous edits, know how they can damage Wikipedia, and I will ''never'' do what I did before. Notice my simple wiki edits? I know my edits were wrong, and have improved. Unblock me, and you'll be STUNNED at my ''mega'' improvements. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

--213.107.74.132 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

I think this request is to early to even think about getting unblocked. As I said earlier you probably need to spend at least a month making good constructive edits to Simple Wikipedia before you ask for an unblock here. The decision will be up to the reviewing admin though. GB fan 21:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After this month, will I need to do another unblock request, even though there is one already? I want to be unblocked this year(2011).--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the admin that reviews your unblock request determines you shouldn't be unblocked yet, You will another unblock request. At this point you are not helping yourself. You continue to reinstate the "This is not a human" after a couple of editors have removed it. This account is used by a human, that box is patently false and does not belong so please do not readd it. You should step away from this site for a while and concentrate on improving Simple. GB fan 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia

Notice how (click here), I get concensus before making changes. BTW the page is NOT a copy of here, but I simplifed it to make it sutable for simple Wikipedia. I've changed my ways.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You basically copied the page from here and made a few minor changes. This page is not something you can point to and show how much you have changed. GB fan 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not good enough for simple Wikipedia?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can not comment on whether it is good enough for Simple or not. I do not have much experience there. What I was commenting on is that you are using it to show how you have learned your mistakes. That edit shows you can copy and paste, then make some minor changes. It does not show you have changed. GB fan 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least unblock the reference desk, or List of buses for me?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No we can not unblock individual pages other than your user talk page. When you are blocked you are blocked from all pages. Your access to this page can be removed also if you show that you are being disruptive on it. GB fan 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true.
A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent.

This was in WP:BLOCK.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your block

The number one thing that people need to see from you if you wish to be unblocked is time. Literally, nothing you can do in the next day or two is going to convince anybody you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. It is going to take several months of good behavior, and a consistent display of proper editing at a sister project, which shows that you are learning and improving, to convince people of that. It is not something which you can display in one or two edits, or in one or two days. You have exhausted the patience and trust of the community here, and to earn that patience back will take some extended period of time. Exactly how long that takes is unknown, but it will definately be longer than a few days. In fact, if you check in every day and say "How about now?" and "Am I ready yet?" and "Is this any good?", then you will likely never get to that point. Coming everyday to check in and see if you are ready to be unblock means that you never will be. Just go away for a month or two or more, spend that time learning how to improve, develop a history and reputation of several months at a sister wiki, and after all of that, then come back and request an unblock. --Jayron32 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back at the end of this month and do an unblock. Ok? If not, please reply on my talk page. Oh, and all my edits are in good faith. See WP:AGF.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.107.74.132&oldid=451322018"