Jump to content

User talk:D4rkersib

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by D4rkersib (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 16 September 2012 (→Unblock). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

STOP

Thank you. — ChedZILLA 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder

I saw your edits to User:Montanabw's page, and I wanted to remind you that 1) discussions are normally conducted on a user's Talk page and not their userpage, and 2) signing your posts with four tildas is always a good thing and generally gains you more respect with other Wikipedians. Finally, don't just delete important messages on your Talk page unless you're archiving them or something like that. • Jesse V.(talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I don't see any evidence of Vandalism as you indicated here, but I do see plenty of evidence of Edit Warring on both sides, I'd highly recomment that you refrain from such behavior and discuss your changes on the article's talk page - edit warring can result in being blocked, especially if the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR is crossed. Dreadstar ☥ 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would discuss it on the talk page, except it appears I got blocked. Curious, considering both of us were supposedly engaging in edit warring, yet I'm the only one blocked.D4rkersib (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not blocked, I've protected the article. It may be that the block on your other account is affecting this one per WP:AUTOBLOCK - but it doesn't appear that your other account was blocked in that manner. Dreadstar ☥ 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I see: "A user of this IP address was blocked by Ched for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lapzwans". The reason given for Lapzwans's block is: "account abandoned....This block has been set to expire: 18:39, 30 August 2012." D4rkersib (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seen anything in the autoblock report that shows this account, but I reset the block on the other account to disable autoblocks. Try to edit the Talk:Calf roping page again and see if it works. Dreadstar ☥ 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It works again, thanks.D4rkersib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D4rkersib, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi D4rkersib! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account indefinitely for sockpuppetry because the behavior is virtually identical to other blocked socks per this SPI report. Dreadstar ☥ 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

D4rkersib (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My accounts were Lapzwans, which I had lost the password to and didn't attempt to hide, and this one. I've never heard of ItsLassieTime and it seems to me you could easily check this by comparing IP's or something. Maybe you should show a little more discretion when throwing around blocks and you won't get as many unblock requests as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Sockpuppetry_blocks. I was blocked due to 'identical behaviour' from another user more than four years ago, as in we edited the same section of an article and removed the word 'claim'. If I was editing a week after he got blocked, I can see why you'd think so, but this is four years later. Please use some common sense. Outside of the word 'claim', which was only one of many edits, our edits were not remotely similar. I'd also like to point out I was having a fruitful discussion on the calf roping talk page, which was abruptly cut off due to this overzealous blocking.

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= My accounts were Lapzwans, which I had lost the password to and didn't attempt to hide, and this one. I've never heard of ItsLassieTime and it seems to me you could easily check this by comparing IP's or something. Maybe you should show a little more discretion when throwing around blocks and you won't get as many unblock requests as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Sockpuppetry_blocks. I was blocked due to 'identical behaviour' from another user more than four years ago, as in we edited the same section of an article and removed the word 'claim'. If I was editing a week after he got blocked, I can see why you'd think so, but this is four years later. Please use some common sense. Outside of the word 'claim', which was only one of many edits, our edits were not remotely similar. I'd also like to point out I was having a fruitful discussion on the calf roping talk page, which was abruptly cut off due to this overzealous blocking. |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= My accounts were Lapzwans, which I had lost the password to and didn't attempt to hide, and this one. I've never heard of ItsLassieTime and it seems to me you could easily check this by comparing IP's or something. Maybe you should show a little more discretion when throwing around blocks and you won't get as many unblock requests as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Sockpuppetry_blocks. I was blocked due to 'identical behaviour' from another user more than four years ago, as in we edited the same section of an article and removed the word 'claim'. If I was editing a week after he got blocked, I can see why you'd think so, but this is four years later. Please use some common sense. Outside of the word 'claim', which was only one of many edits, our edits were not remotely similar. I'd also like to point out I was having a fruitful discussion on the calf roping talk page, which was abruptly cut off due to this overzealous blocking. |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= My accounts were Lapzwans, which I had lost the password to and didn't attempt to hide, and this one. I've never heard of ItsLassieTime and it seems to me you could easily check this by comparing IP's or something. Maybe you should show a little more discretion when throwing around blocks and you won't get as many unblock requests as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Sockpuppetry_blocks. I was blocked due to 'identical behaviour' from another user more than four years ago, as in we edited the same section of an article and removed the word 'claim'. If I was editing a week after he got blocked, I can see why you'd think so, but this is four years later. Please use some common sense. Outside of the word 'claim', which was only one of many edits, our edits were not remotely similar. I'd also like to point out I was having a fruitful discussion on the calf roping talk page, which was abruptly cut off due to this overzealous blocking. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:D4rkersib&oldid=512827088"