User talk:Backlook

Warning

Just to warn you, making disruptive edits and vandalism like what you did to Trina discography will result in you getting blocked if you continue. Please stop vandalizing this page and leave it as is, everything is sourced, corrected and verified as seen. If you continue vandalizing this page, I will report you to an administrator. Hometown Kid (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, unsourced figures. I blocked you as an IP for ignoring warnings about WP:BADCHARTS and inserting unsourced material into Trina discography. I blocked your account for 3 days because you evaded the block and repeated the edits. I see that you have since been edit warring the figures into Trina discography both as an IP and as this account. You are blocked until you agree to stop inserting unsourced figures and charts listed at WP:BADCHARTS into Trina discography.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 04:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

unblocked

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).

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

---

Request reason:

For i can edit the correct information.

and trina red bottoms is number 100 on the r&b/hip-hop chart

http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/trina/252957 Backlook (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2011 (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.

Admins aren't going to unblock you if your argument is the reason you got blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

unblocked?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Can i please get unblocked,i understand what i did was wrong. Backlook (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per Jeske below, as well as the open sockpuppetry cases - I think there are some things we need to work out first. No for now. SQL^{Query me!} 06:53, 17 July 2011 (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 don't think anyone's buying this since your last unblock demanded we unblock you so you could continue the same behavior that led to the block in the first place. We aren't idiots. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

please delete this account!

thank you.

For legal and technical reasons we cannot delete accounts. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

please unblock this account.

Just give me one more chance,promise i will post reliable information. I'm BEGGING. Backlook (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two hours ago you begged us to unblock you so you could post the same stuff that led to you getting blocked seven months ago. I'm not buying the speed of this turnaround, and I heavily doubt any admin will. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I will NOT post the same things i did seven months ago. CAN WE WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT?Backlook (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any comment regarding the multiple sockpuppetry cases involving you at this time? SQL^{Query me!} 07:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

SQL, I'd like to note that those cases are not open, but archived.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do,I will admit that I made all those accounts,and I know its not worth just to get my ip blocked from this website.

I came down to a understanding,that I will follow the rules for now on.Backlook (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Does that understanding include those of WP:SOCK, WP:Verifiability, and WP:BADCHARTS, as well as WP:Edit warring? If yes, then please use the unblock template again to request an unblock.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

yesBacklook (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

yes i understand the rules now.

Decline reason:

I don't see any evidence of that. You got caught using sockpuppet accounts, and since then you've been posting very short responses to admins which appear to be attempts to tell them what you think they want to see. On the basis of your long-running use of sockpuppet accounts and the above responses to questions from admins, I don't see any evidence that you're likely to edit productively. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2011 (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.

You'll have to be more specific on how you understand the rules, and what rules you understand, if you ever want to be unblocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to post false information,and don't make multiply accounts.Backlook (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now you're being vacuous to be vacuous. Admins aren't buying your obvious "say what they wanna hear" statements. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know I'm just being vacuous? Backlook (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not being detailed enough, put simply, in your statements about understanding Wikipedia policy. To be unblocked, I would cite the relevant policies (by name) and give at least a 1000-KB formal and sincere explanation about how I understand them.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

okBacklook (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This probably removed your last chance of being unblocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

is anyone going to unblock this profile.

????????? Backlook (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not as long as we have no reason to.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

you just can't let this profile stay blocked forever. I'm going to keep coming back no matter what.Backlook (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda pointless. We'll just revert and block you, 10 times faster than you can create new sockpuppets. Whether this account is unblocked is up to you, and it's your choice, not ours.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

if it's my choice,than unblock the account. if you guys going to "REVERT" whatever i edit,even if its correct. then unblock the account. you told me to get this account unblocked.Backlook (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. We block you because you break our policy, and we're not going to unblock you until you show that you will follow policy, most importantly here Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I tell you to get this account unblocked because it's the only way you will be allowed to edit, but unblocking isn't trivial and at this point, you will really have to be formal and sincere in your unblock requests.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

i just don't understand,it doesn't how many time i make a request,you people are still going to deny it. im just done. at least i tired. Backlook (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't try hard enough, simply put. When we deny your unblock request, formulate the next one to address problems raised by the declining admin. It's your only possible path to get back to being able to edit Wikipedia, and I sure hope that you can rejoin our community. However, you will have to be more serious with your unblock requests and more sincere - when I got blocked, my unblock request took a minimum of 10 minutes to write - and was over 1000 characters long. It cited relevant policy in a formal matter. These are the kinds of requests that get accepted.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I write this request today for I can rejoin the Wikipedia community. I understand that I didn't follow policy,and yes I know ignore the warnings,but now I have a clear understanding on what to do and how do it. If you just can give me this second chance,I will show you guys that I can obey the policy and rules.

Decline reason:

You'll need to say more than "I have a clear understanding"- you'll actually need to explain what happened, why you were blocked, and how you'll avoid behaviors like that in the future. TNXMan 17:15, 8 August 2011 (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.

Backlook (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I write this request today for I can rejoin the Wikipedia community.The reason I ask for this request is because,I was caught vandalism artists pages,and also making numerous accounts.In the near future if I want to edit anything,I will make sure the link is a creditable source,and also see does it have the right information.

Decline reason:

You are either incompetent to edit here or a troll. I don't know which it is but it does not matter. I will be revoking your ability to edit this page, if you wish to appeal this block further you will need to email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backlook for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)