User talk:Dskin82

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. While everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your contributions, such as your recent edit to Constitution, did not appear to be constructive and was automatically reverted by DASHBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
DASHBot produces few false positives, but they do happen. If you believe the bot has reverted your edit wrongly, it is helpful if you report the error so the bot does not make the same mistake again. Please:

Click here to submit a false positive report.
Edit this page and remove this message.

Thanks, DASHBot Anti-Vandalism (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page The Five People You Meet in Heaven. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:L Kensington. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to User talk:L Kensington. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been permanently blocked from editing for persistent vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 19 August 2010 (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).

Dskin82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I considered it a game similar to chess and I wanted to see if I would be blocked, I will not do anything of the sort again, would you please unblock me?

Decline reason:

Checkmate. TN X Man 02:41, 19 August 2010 (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.

May I ask if some part of "if you continue [...], you will be blocked from editing" is ambiguous? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not ambiguous, it was quite clear. However I stupidly and foolishly thought I could outsmart you. I was obviously proved quite wrong. My logic was faulty. At any rate would you at least unblock my IP address? i would appreciate it also if you would put a definite time on my block on wikipedia if you cannot find it in your heart to remove my ban. In all honesty, Englishman to Englishman, would it be so difficult chap to simply remove the ban. Perhaps a cup of tea and a crumpet might change your mood.

Might I ask you Dskin82 how you expected us not to notice that you were vandalizing pages? There is a policy on Wikipedia, found at WP:POINT, that states that one should not disrupt the encyclopedia (by blanking or vandalizing pages) to illustrate a point. You seem to think that this is a game, let me tell you, it isn't. This encyclopedia is a serious thing. Sure, some of the experienced editors will do something related to the Department of Fun but at all times the main focus is the articles and their quality. There are literally thousands of editors every second looking at screens making sure that people like you are not destroying the encyclopedia. I think though, that you do understand that what you did wasn't allowed. I also am going to assume good faith and think that if we lifted the block than you would turn around and start helping the encyclopedia. Unfortunately we can't always do that, since, as I said earlier, the encyclopedia is more important than any one individual. Cheers, Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I have been blocked for a few months, might I have it removed?

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).

Dskin82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been a number of months now, I am using my IP address to make constructive and helpful contributions to the encyclopedia. What I done before was foolish and ignorant, but I assure you that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort again. I ask you to please consider removing the block on my account, it is not for the purpose of vandalism I assure you.

Decline reason:

Most certainly not! You have admitted above that you have been editing anonymously as an IP. This is a massive violation of WP:EVADE. When YOUR account is blocked, that means that YOU, as a person are blocked. You were provided with the WP:BLOCK and guide to appealing blocks - evading a valid block is clearly not permitted. Today, I will suggest WP:OFFER - however if you so much as add a period to an article anonymously during a 6 month period, the WP:OFFER will be revoked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 27 November 2010 (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.

Im sorry but I am not going through this whole process, by all means keep me blocked or better yet, I invoke my right to vanish, I have no use for wikipedia, I cant use it for college and I find it to be useless. I actually tried to make good and amend for my stupid previous actions. But for that I was again chastised. I am through with you people. I dont understand what the big deal is, the fact is that it is a skewed form of justice. You block me due to five or six inappropriate edits and I get permanently blocked. I'm sorry but I will no longer be a part of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. Thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dskin82 (talk • contribs)

Here's the deal: think back to the last time you edited Wikipedia using an IP address. Add 6 months to that date. Continue to use Wikipedia as a resource (yes, you can use it for college projects if you use it correctly), but do not attempt to edit as that will add a fresh set of 6 months. At the 6 month mark, add a new unblock request. You may wish to help your case by editing at another Wikimedia project. Most college students do not try to "outsmart" in this manner - and it's the attitude that you could and that doing so was okay that has led you to where you are. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I was not a college student the last time I edited Wikipedia,the times that got me banned. Back to the point however, my professors, every one of them, expressly forbid using Wikipedia as a source. Citing Wikipedia as a source results in an automatic fail on any essay, etc. So no it cannot be used a source, due to it being open to edits by any individual. Which of course leads to stupid teenagers, like I was, to vandalise pages and delete things. I don't deny that what I done was wrong, nor do I feel that it was ok. It was stupid and I admit that. Now back to the point at hand, I thought that by making constructive edits it would help my case, I was obviously wrong about that. Im not asking to be returned to a member in good standing, if you notice I have made no further attempts to get unblocked. Nor will I. I simply want it to be understood that I understand what I had done was stupid, but I did try to make amends. I simply went about it the wrong way, but my intentions were good. I know the road to Hell is paved with good intentions but this was honestly a mistake. Not the vandalism I committed months ago but the whole IP deal, it was a mistake.