User talk:68.231.26.111

Going forward

As you may have seen, I did the work of opening an SPI and providing evidence. Several socks are now blocked. If you suspect socks of the same editor have appeared again, please post to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt (with evidence). If you are unsure how to format your report, post to my talk page (again, with specific evidence) and I will handle it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for the love of god thank you--68.231.26.111 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page additions

Adding this to talk pages, implying that I have blocked the IP or have determined it's a sock, is not good. Please do not do that again. If you think an IP is block evading, you can add {{subst:uw-socksuspect|Spliff Joint Blunt}} and provide evidence on the SPI case page. Also, please read over User_talk:NeilN#does_an_indefititely_blocked_editor_have_the_right_to_post_on_user_pages and respond if you wish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Supergirl (U.S. TV series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Alex|The|Whovian 10:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dude you just attacked me and called me a plaguirist!!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an attack. Continue the conversation on my talk page (which is where you took it). Alex|The|Whovian 10:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Under "Recap – Prev Episode". Perfectly matches what's on Wikipedia - proof it has been copied to here. Alex|The|Whovian 11:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dude is that all you have for evidence!!! the webpage you quote is just a sniffer it finds thing already written and just becomes a file cabinet for them - you need to show a citation - a thing SIGNED by some author!!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need proof that you created it. If it's found on another website, it's reverted. It's really as easy as that. Alex|The|Whovian 11:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

again dude are you brain dead the webpage you show is just a sniffer - it runs around the internet and just copies stuff - i am sure it has billions for wiki lines it has stolen!!!

None of this you can prove. Alex|The|Whovian 11:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral party here, i'm with the IP on this one, see their synopsis for ep6 before they changed it..its not always necessary that things were copied from other sites, its also possible others sites copy stuff from wikipedia; infact, its more likely and quite prevalent..--Ste moc 12:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One simply needs to Google the summary to see that it is on multiple sites. Do you have a cache for each of them? Alex|The|Whovian 12:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely on multiple sites with no clear indication of where it originally came from but, since it wasn't originally from this site, we have to treat it as a copyright violation. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have you see how the edits were made by the IP? It was not a single edit, but multiple ones within minutes such as this, 20 mins later, 5 mins later which collaborates with the link provided above and then over 5 hours later, the IP makes changes which the site mentioned above uses as a prequel option in their next episode..as i said, its the other way around, they are copying US.--Ste moc 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Portal:Current events/2015 December 6. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Administrators; notice Board/Edit war

You can't post. Over and above your block, the page is now protected. (cur | prev) 17:29, 6 December 2015‎ Ymblanter (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (126,652 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 05:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (undo | thank) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i couldnt even defend myself - how fair is that!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wiki proves again - whole thing is absolutely pointless - please explain to me in terms even a 3-year-old can understand how it happens that the other guy is also not looking at the same block - he posted 7 reverts himself!!! all i ever see here is warrior assistance, sock puppet assistance, bias assistance, people that dont have the slightess clue what they are sayijng getting assistance --68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. 3RR
2. Blanking your talk page when others tried to communicate with you
3. this personal attack
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some words

Look, I think you're a net positive to Wikipedia but not if you set the attackmeter to 11 every time someone reverts you or questions your edits. If that happens, you'll probably be treated like most IPs who disrupt or vandalize. So, question for you - assuming that you get reverted in the future (and it's going to happen), how can we stop the situation from quickly deteriorating into a battlefield? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

The New York Times is a notable source for coverage, the current events section is also not an article so policy regarding articles wouldn't apply. Like it, don't like it the Brussels comments received coverage from reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jan 30, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/2016_January_30
South Korean golfer Jang Ha-na makes first albatross on par-four in LPGA history at Bahamas tournament. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-31/jang-ha-na-makes-historic-albatross-in-bahamas-lpga-event/7127812 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sukhoi 24 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths "Sidebar"
Jan 27, 2016
Artur Fischer = "over 1100 patents"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/Sidebar&action=edit&section=5 --68.231.26.111 (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Portal:Current events/2016 February 26. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally lenient on people who make good faith edits, but you have not edited any articles this entire year on this IP, and one the latest sets of edits I find is an edit war, so I feel a block is correct. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

right so you dont care that the other editor, ----------------- User:Spirit Ethanol --------------, has been indefinitely blocked and is posting endless bias on wiki!? ((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)) --68.231.26.111 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he is laughing at you right now and setting up his next sockpuppet to laugh some more--68.231.26.111 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just to be clear - this is what i posted over at the admin boards before this admin blocked me to wp:proxy-assist as a turnkey for an indefinately banned user sockpuppet - "::my defence is as follows - how many stupid admins exist at wiki? - one after another after another - the above user is a sockpuppet created just last Nov 2015 - I am almost certain it is just more of this sockpuppet in one of all his hundreds of block evasion activities creating endless accounts to war at wiki - he is as follows: ((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)) - as usual he expects that some idiot admin will fall for it again and again and again - and guess what?, it works every time!!!"--68.231.26.111 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as per EXPLICITELY STATED IN WIKI'S OWN RULES at WP:BLOCKEVASION "Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors - Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. - Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.[1] See also the policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry."--68.231.26.111 (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that the other user has been blocked, but only for 24 hours, I think it's fair to say that administrators have reviewed the other user's edits and do not share your views that (s)he is abusing multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, what is fair to say is that the admin who blocked me is lazy and did not figure out that the sock is indeed obviously the blocked user of endless evasions as i have said!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.