User talk:Dan Frederiksen
Welcome!
Indefinite blocking of account
[edit] | Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of 85.83.19.103 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. |
tedder (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I see that this account has been blocked indefinitely. The reason the account has been blocked is because it is suspected you are the same person as the person who edited using IP address 85.83.19.103. To see why you are suspected of being a sockpuppet of 85.83.19.103 compare this diff (1) by 85.83.19.103 and this diff (2) by Dan Frederiksen. IP address 85.83.19.103 has been indefinitely blocked.
The reason Dan Frederiksen has been blocked is not because of anything written on Wikipedia from the account User:Dan Frederiksen. It is because of what was written by 85.83.19.103, and the fact that 85.83.19.103 has been indefinitely blocked.
You are entitled to contest the indefinite blocking of your account. For example, if you have not written anything using IP address 85.83.19.103, or you believe you have been unfairly treated, or you wish to contribute constructively and harmoniously to Wikipedia in the future, I encourage you to contest the blocking of your account. First you should read Wikipedia’s guide to appealing blocks. Then you should give your reasons on your Talk page. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am indeed that same person. I did the original edits without an account and later realized I already had an account with wikipedia. But I never did anything wrong. I am banned for not bowing to their mindless power which is a capital offense. You can look at my history and see the blockings are entirely unjust but from your behavior I think my initial guess at your personality is correct. You mean well but is a coward and you see no evil hear no evil and speak no evil. I don't exactly feel like going through more bureaucracy populated by vogons. I forgive you for you know not what you do. Dan Frederiksen (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dan Frederiksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried adding a bit of pertinent information about a show cancellation status and an admin kneejerkingly deleted it because he rubberstamped it with a "link to be avoided". the link was a petition from the show creator to have the show resumed. pertinent information to any reasonable mind. people come to look for information about the show and they should find the true status of it. to conform to the fascist idiot admin I added the section again but without the petition link and just a reference to the show creator's website that contained the information about the show's status. it was immediately removed again because now a flock of morons had set it in their mind that I was a trouble maker. I added the section again insisting it was pertinent. then I was banned for edit warring. the others weren't touched at all. I had contributed, they had deleted. I was right, they were wrong, but I was banned for a week. The original admin hu12 even blatantly celebrates abuse of power on his wiki page. All this was without an account, just my IP. I later realized I already had an account on wiki and using this I changed the wording on the same page in a different section from "ran for three seasons" to "has run for three seasons" because ran sounds past tense and the last ep was only weeks ago and the show might still be renewed for more seasons. for that I was permanently banned as a "suck puppet". no debate, no warning. I hereby request to be unblocked and although I have no hope of such justice in wikipedia I also request that the offending admin hu12 be stripped of his power forever. The reason this request comes a year after the event is that I was so dismayed at the thoughtless lack of appreciation for justice by the involved admins, and still am. I am hoping that not all admins at wikipedia are so poor.
Decline reason:
Unblock requests that attack other persons are not evaluated. Sandstein 14:46, 4 December 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.
Dan Frederiksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried adding a bit of pertinent information about a show cancellation status and an admin kneejerkingly deleted it because he rubberstamped it with a "link to be avoided". the link was a petition from the show creator to have the show resumed. pertinent information to any reasonable mind. people come to look for information about the show and they should find the true status of it. to conform to the admin I added the section again but without the petition link and just a reference to the show creator's website that contained the information about the show's status. it was immediately removed again because now some had convinced themselves that I was a trouble maker and no thought was requierd. I added the section again insisting it was pertinent with further refinement to the sourcing with proper referencing code. then I was banned for edit warring. the others weren't touched at all. I had contributed, they had deleted. I was right, they were wrong, but I was banned for a week. The original admin hu12 even blatantly celebrated abuse of power on his wiki page. All this was without an account, just my IP. I later realized I already had an account on wiki and using this I changed the wording on the same page in a different section from "ran for three seasons" to "has run for three seasons" because ran sounds past tense and the last ep was only weeks ago and the show might still be renewed for more seasons. for that I was permanently banned as a "suck puppet". no debate, no warning. I hereby request to be unblocked. and although I have no hope of such justice in wikipedia I further request that the offending admin hu12 be stripped of his power forever. The reason this request comes a year after the event is that I was so dismayed at the thoughtless lack of appreciation for justice by the involved admins, and still am. I am hoping that not all admins at wikipedia are so poor. I am an exceedingly rational and intelligent person and would be a benefit to wikipedia.
Decline reason:
Unblock requests that attack other persons are not evaluated. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:26, 4 December 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.
Dan Frederiksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried adding a bit of pertinent information about a show cancellation status and an admin deleted it because he rubberstamped it with a "link to be avoided". the link was a petition from the show creator to have the show resumed. pertinent information to any reasonable mind. people come to look for information about the show and they should find the true status of it. to conform to the admin I added the section again but without the petition link and just a reference to the show creator's website that contained the information about the show's status. it was immediately removed again because now some had convinced themselves that I was a trouble maker and no thought was required. I added the section again insisting it was pertinent with further refinement to the sourcing with proper referencing code. then I was banned for a week for edit warring. All this was without an account, just my IP. I later realized I already had an account on wiki and using this I changed the wording on the same page in a different section from "ran for three seasons" to "has run for three seasons" because ran sounds past tense and the last ep was only weeks ago and the show might still be renewed for more seasons. for that I was permanently banned as a "suck puppet". no debate, no warning. I hereby request to be unblocked. I am an exceedingly rational and intelligent person and would be a benefit to wikipedia.
Decline reason:
A 'sock puppet' is a person who uses more than one account in an unfair way, for example, to avoid a block. No 'warning' or debate was necessary, since you were already blocked when you began editing with this account, and knew that you were blocked. There is no such think as a 'suck puppet.' You do not appear to understand the reason for your block, so I have no reason to think that, if you are blocked in the future, you won't break the same rule again. I therefore do not feel good about undoing this block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:40, 5 December 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.
Dan Frederiksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried adding a bit of pertinent information about a show cancellation status and an admin deleted it because he rubberstamped it with a "link to be avoided". the link was a petition from the show creator to have the show resumed. pertinent information to any reasonable mind. people come to look for information about the show and they should find the true status of it. to conform to the admin I added the section again but without the petition link and just a reference to the show creator's website that contained the information about the show's status. it was immediately removed again because now some had convinced themselves that I was a trouble maker and no thought was required. I added the section again insisting it was pertinent with further refinement to the sourcing with proper referencing code. then I was banned for a week for edit warring. All this was without an account, just my IP. I later realized I already had an account on wiki and using this I changed the wording on the same page in a different section from "ran for three seasons" to "has run for three seasons" because ran sounds past tense and the last ep was only weeks ago and the show might still be renewed for more seasons. for that I was permanently banned as a "sock puppet". no debate, no warning. I hereby request to be unblocked. I am an exceedingly rational and intelligent person and would be a benefit to wikipedia. I know what a sock puppet is, I also know why I was blocked, I also know that I should never have been blocked in the first place and in any case a year's block should be more than adequate punishment. The first 3 reviews of my unblock request have been much too casual. Any excuse to avoid dealing with the issue. is that really what you want wikipedia to be?
Decline reason:
You are still not acknowledging the reasons for your unblock, claiming you did nothing wrong, and blaming others for everything. Even though you are no longer using the extreme language you used previously, you are still dismissing the judgements of other editors, using such wording as "no thought was required" and "any excuse to avoid dealing with the issue". As an exceedingly rational and intelligent person you will no doubt see why doing so is unlikely to get you unblocked. Wikipedia works by cooperation and consensus, and an editor who (a) persistently tries to impose their own version in the face of disagreement without discussion and then (b) contemptuously dismisses the judgements of other Wikipedians is unlikely to be able to edit cooperatively, which is necessary in order to be able to act successfully in the context of Wikipedia. You have now made four unblock requests, which are all essentially the same, with some rewording. If you continue to make virtually the same unblock request it is likely to be seen as a waste of everybody's time, and there is a good chance you will have talk page access revoked to avoid that waste of time. I therefore strongly recommend that if you make another unblock request you put a significant amount of thought into how to do it, and try to address the points I have mentioned. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 5 December 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.
Dan Frederiksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
you're going to read the prior requests anyway so I wont reword it. merely appeal to you to actually try to understand the situation and have the sense of justice to do the right thing despite prior judgments. even if I did do something wrong (and as just judges you should REALLY be open to the idea that an admin and other editors can be wrong. truth is not a democracy and might does not make right) then surely a year's block is plenty punishment. there seems to be a dreadful tendency among the reviewing admins to simply assume guilt and any suggestion of innocence or fault elsewhere is seen as further wrong, not because it is so but merely by arrogant assumption and laziness. I have seen rampant abuse of power in forums like IRC but I was really hoping for finer minds at wikipedia. look at my crime and compare it to the punishment and callous treatment of me here.) Einstein once said there are only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity and he wasn't sure about the former. he wasn't joking. be better than that. here's a bit about me: http://zev.dk/df.htm I am a genius and of very sound mind and not the simple troublemaker you want me to be. choose wisely. PS, it would be nice to have recourse for a judgment! I can't answer any of it because I'm not allowed to edit talk pages either...
Decline reason:
Since you don't seem to have understood what JamesBWatson said above and persist in making attacks, I've removed your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 20:46, 5 December 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.