User talk:Hollow Wilerding

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of 16 January 2006.

Welcome to the user talk page of I, Hollow Wilerding.

---

User Talk Archives

Archive 1

"When you believe... the sky doesn't seem so high after all."
"Paradise is but imagination."
"To accomplish something is to ready, set, go."

Hello from Eddie Re: Your Nomination

Hey,

I recently noticed Your Wikipedia:RFA nomination failed miserably. I also tried about a month ago with the same results. It's good to know I'm in good company. -- Eddie 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking on FAC: sockpuppets

Hi, Hollow. A CheckUser check performed by Kelly Martin has confirmed that you, Winnermario, and DrippingInk are the same editor "or at least share the same connection".[1] Please see my post at the administrators' noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Luxurious (song)

I did it. Extraordinary Machine 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it appears as though you did. Excuse my lazy eyes today, as this is an example of New Year's Eve night. Nonetheless, let's continue contributing this year too! By the way, don't leave Wikipedia, because your edits are excellent. (November is quite impressive.) Happy new year! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Block message

Crossposted from WP:ANI

All right, here's what I'm going to do about the editor. I deduce from Raul's message that he's against banning HW from FAC; therefore, I will block the Hollow Wilerding account for one week for disruption, abusive sockpuppetry, and inveterate deception. I'm sorry, but User:DrippingInk will remain indefinitely blocked, since I can't postulate that HW has any credibility at all, after all her twists and turns, always with the word "honesty" in her mouth. I have also blocked the new sock account User:Siblings CW indefinitely. To Hollow Wilerding: if you have any interest in continuing to edit this site, don't evade this block by creating any new accounts whatsoever during the block. If you have any more sock accounts already established, don't use them while you're blocked. Note that during the block, you can still edit your own talk page, and people will be watching it. You can also e-mail any administrator, or e-mail the Wikipedia:Mailing list, if you wish to protest the block. I'm cross-posting this message to User talk:Hollow Wilerding. Any objections, comments? Bishonen | talk 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

I don't agree with this block. Hollow Wilerding seems to be an excellent editor, albeit one who has flaws regarding community interaction; although the recent situation raises concerns, it will not help us to have her blocked for a week when she could be using that time to work on articles. The correct remedy: no blocks, but Majora's Mask needs a revote and henceforth any of these suspected sock accounts can't vote alongside Hollow, although they will be otherwise free to edit. Everyking 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Everyking, I would appreciate it you attempted to remove this block. I explained that it was none of their businesses why we kept it a secret; this is our computer, our IP address, and not theirs. We did not have to come clean about the situation if we did not feel like it, and that was the case. User:DrippingInk and I created the new account so that we could edit together under the same name so as to avoid controversy of the same IP address again; however, since User:Bishonen has this immense grudge against me, (s)he completely ignored the entire case. They went ahead and blocked the new account. Therefore, next Monday, I will have an RfC ready to go. Wikipedia is setting a disgusting example for its users who do not wish to reveal what they are "hiding" or in this case not revealing. Moreover, I may even go as far as suing the Wikipedia Foundation for misuse of allowing its users to block innocent victims. One can waste their time editing for weeks until finally achieving a featured article, but then because they have other people using the same computer as them, they will have their article stripped of its status, and they will then be blocked for a week. That's a terrible example. The sysop abilities are disgusting, and I may also file an RfC against that as well. Two RfCs. Pathetic, isn't it for you? I require help for this week, but when I come back, it isn't going to be pretty. A new account is once again going to be established for DrippingInk and myself to use come our return. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

HW:

1. Whatever you do, don't let all this discourage you. You're a fantastic editor.
2. Don't make legal threats. It's immature, and makes you look as such. Legal threats are also a good way to get oneself blocked forever.

Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, User:Search4Lancer. I'm not going to bother with legal threats because, first and solely, it will be a waste of my time. Not because of anything else; only because it will be a waste of my time. Otherwise, I will definitely be filing an RfC, as blocking someone for one entire week even after attempting to compromise, materialising the compromise (User:Siblings CW), and then watching the compromise be killed. User:Bishonen is exercising poor usage of the sysop abilities. (S)he failed to allow me to dodge the bullet even if I were to have received some extreme warning, which would still fail to impress me considering, I must say it again, it is nobody's business whether I had revealed the multiple usage of the computer I am currently accessing or not. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the administrators board, User:Bishonen is continulously convinced that I am three people, and fails to register the policy assume good faith. Someone get another sysop in here or something, an end needs to be put to this notorious incident! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; I'll just be keeping these wikilinks on my talk page so that I don't have to continuously type them into the search box every time I log on to Wikipedia. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is a message posted by User:Bishonen at the administrators' board regarding the incident: IOW, a new multiuser (that's not allowed) sock (not that, either) account to replace the one I blocked a few hours ago.

...Wow. I am devastated. So multi-users are not allowed, are they? Then we have a huge issue. If multi-users are not allowed, why have User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario been blocked? If we can't have a shared account, then we have no choice but to access individual accounts, and as it stands, that's going to be under the same IP address! Yet for some peculiar reason, both of the accounts in mention above have been blocked! That means both William and Mariah will have to create new accounts, yet I am positive User:Bishonen will block them again because (s)he will assume that they are sock puppets all over again! What a terrible issue this is! I hereby demand myself to be unblocked so that I can file the RfC right now. You seem to have cut a thread.

1. You never told me that a multi-user account was prohibited, so therefore, you call it "another sock puppet account".
2. You continue to believe that User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are sock puppets.
3. You have failed to register Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
4. It doesn't appear as though you read any of my responses and comments at the administrators' board. Does this indicate you wanted to ensure my block?
5. It was my decision not to tell the entire Wikipedia community that we shared a computer. Therefore, you cannot assume bad faith, yet you never assumed good faith either.
6. User:Bishonen has abused his/her sysop abilities, and should be stripped of them immediately.

—Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's abuse going on by the part of admins, who should be taking this matter seriously, not as some kind of joke. Admins such as Bishonen, who thinks so highly of herself, should not be given power. I wish I could help, I can't tho. Best of luck. - No name, sry

I've completed the RfC and found a couple of endorsers. Prepare yourselves for hell. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Block extended

I have extended your block to two weeks, starting now, for block evasion.[2] Please stop acting like this, you're only hurting yourself. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

You have officially abused your sysop powers. I will continue to log on to separate IP addresses as long as I am capable of in order to boycott this notorious situation. One cannot block another without any sources or references of actual sock puppetry. You are going to pay with your administrator abilities. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, because of you User:Bishonen, all sysops might just pay. An RfC is being filed against the abilities that admins receive, and preferably, remove the administrator standing on Wikipedia altogether. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A lawsuit is also being filed, for those who possess interest. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I'm not sure if you're aware of this policy, but making legal threats to other Wikipedians on Wikipedia is not allowed. I hope you won't make any legal threats or file any lawsuits, because people have been permanently banned for it before. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously people have been permanently banned for the action, because this is Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want the users who sued the company. I don't know though, you've got a point. Perhaps I won't conduct the lawsuit because once again, it is a waste of time, and I'm just a school teacher. Nonetheless, the RfCs (both) are being written by myself, User:DrippingInk, and User:Winnermario, and will be filed within the next week. I will say no more. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I've been blocked permanently? Legal action is commencing. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation account

Either tomorrow or on January 5, 2006, a reincarnation account is going to be created to allow myself, User:Hollow Wilerding, and my brother User:DrippingInk to edit under the same account. An RfC will be filed proceeding the creation, and the account will not be blocked. There is no reason that we should have ever been blocked for editing under the same IP. Had we come clean in the beginning, we would have been accused of sock puppetry anyway. It was not my decision and I never asked my brother or roomie to vote "support" on my FACs, that was their choice. The fact that we've all been blocked infinitely for a silly, stupid incident exemplifies the following: Wikipedia displays immature, illogical rules and sysops are allowed to commence immature, UNREFERENCED OR UNCITED BLOCKS. The entire situation at the administrators' board was carried out entirely under bad assumption. Either tomorrow or January 5, a nice long RfC will commence, and should we be blocked during the RfC, another reincarnation will occur.

All we want to do is edit this website and make people happy; why are you Wikipedians against it? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to this, blocking infinitely and protecting the talk page is not even mentioned. Attempting to locate further excuses so that I be blocked? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Every time I log off Wikipedia and then log back on, it appears as though User:Bishonen has blocked my IP address. I'd have to assume that (s)he continues to do this as to ensure my infinite block on this website. At the RfC, I can also file for stalking. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when a user is blocked his or her IP address is also barred from editing. Any subsequent edits will trigger the wiki software to automatically block the IP address; the block will appear in the name of the original blocking admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Journalist

Sorry for not replying to your messages; it couldnt be helped. I'm still unable to converse over the net. Apart from my computer system crashing (piece of crap), i have exams coming up in two weeks. These exams will have a very huge impact on my averages (and if they are below 85%, I wont be able to get into the university program I applying for). Therefore, i will be away until about February. I'll still pop in when I'm at the library at school (like now), but my activities will be limited. I will be happy to help you with the article. Thanks for understanding. PS: Take care of Celine Dion for me. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Block Message

You have been blocked for one week following your admission that you have intentionally evaded the blocks issued for

1. Winnermario of 24 hr for personal attacks
2. Hollow Wilerding of one week for misleading those assessing Featured Articles by using multiple accounts to vote for your own nominations
3. Hollow Wilerding of two weeks for making legal threats
4. Siblings WC and others indefinitely for being new accounts by a blocked user.

Note that each of these blocks was mandated by Wikipedia policy.

If you cease editing, under any IP or account, for one week, you may then edit again under this account. Note that this talk page has not been protected by any of those issuing the blocks and is not protected now. That said, your agreement with the blocks is not optional, and further attempts at block evasion will reset the time of the block. Geogre 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

In response to WP:AN/I, I had been logged in as User:Solar Serenity because I had not logged out the previous night when I posted on User talk:Everyking. When I realized this, I logged out and the "block evasion" message appeared. Please note that I was not attempting to evade the block, it just so happened that I was careless and forgot to log out. That is the reason why the block reset itself.

Since I am posting here, does this count as evading a block? Also, my profile is going to be reverted back to what it was before. How dare the one user write "removed stolen bio".

You know what? I've had enough. Game over. You win. Since all of you are so positive that I am three users and are so positive that I'm not even female, a teacher, 24 years-old, the person I claim to be, or whatever else, I am leaving. I don't know how one discovers that all of these traits and qualities are "false" because someone evaded a block and their family also uses the same computer. :/ Certainly peculiar intentions. Cruz wanted to use User:Solar Serenity because, well hmm, let's get logical(!): he changed his mind and wanted to edit again. Without any surprise, bad faith was assumed yet again. Overall, I'm sick and tired. Almost three weeks of my editing period was wasted under assumptions, mocking, and disgust. Yes, go ahead: mock this paragraph at WP:AN/I. Mock my contributions, and continue calling my nomination of Majora's Mask a sock puppet-abused attempt at a featured article. There are many other users on this site who share a computer with another user(s), and I warn all of those users: be careful. If you're discovered, you'll end up the way I did. Keeping it a secret isn't shameful at all, because as I had stated once before: "It's none of your business". Don't you dare assume any other Gwen Stefani fans who edit her articles to be sock puppets of myself, because if they aren't, you will look like the fools you've already become. It is obvious that your block of User:Everyking was an attempt to ensure that people who opposed your block did not get a chance to speak because you certainly know that if you were wrong about all of these blocks, you're Wikilives would serve punishment. By the way, User:Bishonen and User:Geogre, I hope you continue editing at the same time of day together, I hope you continue with your absurd long-gapped edits for the other to edit, and I hope you both (hem hem) sort out your priorities. Don't ever make assumptions like this again. You lost three editors, and unless something is agreed upon, we're not returning. Cruz is not returning. Neither is Mariah or myself. Don't not hold your breath. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just find it all really weird. I don't care if you have always been lying or have been honest every step of the way. Everyone seems fixated on that issue, but it's utterly irrelevant to me. I'm just interested in good content being written. Why can't we just worry about that, and forget the rest? This is personality feuding, and it's ridiculous. HW, you should agree to try to be more polite in the future, and stick to one account for voting purposes, and Bish and Geogre and whoever else should in turn agree to leave you alone and let you get back to doing content work. Why can't that solution work? Everyking 09:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding, because you, your brother and "roommate" abused the FAC process by accessing multiple accounts on Wikipedia, the Toronto District Library IP address range (64.231...) is continuously being blocked. You will no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia as you are disrupting Wikipedia, but more importantly in the case I am speaking from, the library. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia after this block is complete, purchase your own computer and edit from home. I would like to point out that Hollow Wilerding, her brother, and her supposed roommate are definitely three separate people, but they all created Wikipedia accounts to they could promote articles they desired to "the featured standard". 64.231.163.10 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Toronto District Library IP address is 64.231.89.12. The separate IP addresses that are posted all over Wikipedia are the IP addresses the computers (there are over 3000 computers) are set with, and these addresses change every so often due to the number that exist. However, all the computers link back to the original 64.231.89.12. Therefore, the chances that every IP address signed on Wikipedia is not likely, but the majority of them are. The current computer address is being accessed from the Alderwood branch. I don't know if the users who have registered accounts here will believe in me, however, I do caution you from blocking every 64.231... address. 64.231.163.10 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For sneaking into one of the district libraries, Courtni and your friends, you have been permanently banned from the establishments. Your library card number has also been removed from the catalogues. You will most likely see this message once you purchase your own computer. 64.231.75.190 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tatl_and_Tael.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tatl_and_Tael.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:The Majora's Mask Moon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Majora's Mask Moon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Termina Field.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Termina Field.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tatl and Tael.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tatl and Tael.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Majora's Mask Moon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Majora's Mask Moon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Skull Kid.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Skull Kid.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)