User talk:Imustinsistoneditingthisarticle

u

November 2012

Hello, I'm Hello71. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Miles Davis because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ⁓ Hello 71 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Hello71, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Go Phightins! 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove all content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to User talk:Go Phightins!. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jschnur (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Go Phightins!, you may be blocked from editing. NtheP (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Nthep with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tgeairn (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Seriously, you're one vandalism edit away from getting blocked from editing. Stop removing things from peoples' talkpages. If you don't want to seriously edit, please don't vandalize, as it takes time away from others. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Jac16888 ^Talk 23:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop

Ok, ok, you win. I'll stop deleting pages, I promise. I'm just new to wikipedia and I don't know how to do all of the editing stuff, so I was just messing around. I didn't mean any harm by it

You aren't going to get unblocked like that. Follow the instructions above and use {{unblock}} with a good reason why you should be given another chance. Otherwise, you're going to stay blocked. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:13, 29 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm new to wikipedia and I didn't mean any harm. If you let me go I promise I can learn to do the edits and fix articles. What can I do to make this right? There has to be something I can do Imustinsistoneditingthisarticle (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts, including but not limited to Ireallyneedtoeditthisarticle (talk · contribs), IHAVEtoeditthisarticle (talk · contribs), and Theeditbeast (talk · contribs). Please just go away. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:30, 29 November 2012 (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.

(Non-administrator comment). Why did you copy the Sebastian Vettel article (not sure if that's spelled right) into another article? That seems like vandalism to me. I'm someone who believes in giving second chances, but unless you have an explanation for that then you won't be unblocked, and will more than likely have talkpage access revoked. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I wasn't quite sure what it would do, and I wanted to see what would happen. I saw the blue text stated the name inside the info-box on the page. When I clicked "edit" there was an area where his name was stated as well (on the line that said "Name = "), and so I copied an article there to see if it would go inside the info box. There really is no other way of explaining that than to say that it was a stupid edit. Strangely enough, I learned something about editing by doing that, although it was probably the worst way to do so. I really am sorry about all this trouble I've caused. If unblocked, I'm not sure what the first step to learning wikipedia I need to take, but I'll do it.

Note to an administrator: I would be willing to adopt this editor, if you'd like to conditional unblock with the condition to get back to editing be successful completion of the course on the basics of Wikipedia. Go Phightins! 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I wasn't quite sure what it would do" would be more plausible of an excuse had you not done the same thing 3 times, then decided to blank the talk pages of several users, with a giant orange bar leading you to this page telling you to stop the whole time. I see nothing in your behaviour to suggest that you have any intention of being a productive editor--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's a sock, therefore my offer is unnecessary; I was willing to give it a shot if he was acting in good faith, but that seems unlikely due to that revelation. Go Phightins! 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How am I to act in good faith when I can't get unblocked from any other accounts? It's not like I am purposefully trying to avoid being linked to the accounts. Really, all I want is to be given another chance with "ineedtoeditthisarticle", but unless I can copy some source thing and make mega-significant changes to it, then I have no way of ever getting that account back so I can learn how to do anything BUT vandalize on here.

You aren't acting in good faith. You have abused more than 2 accounts. We don't look good upon editors having more than one account without very very clearly linking them, and not using either for malicious edits. Sorry. If you want a second chance, you will need to wait for quite a while before reapplying for an unblock. Even then, you'll need something to convince us you've changed. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have changed if I am promising to commit to good edits and learning. If you unblock ineedtoeditthisarticle, and I even make one mistake, then I am going to be blocked out forever (which is good incentive to behave). Making good edits is the only way I am going to be able to show my good faith, because all other ways of talking about my good merit are going to be seen as flub. Besides, if unblocked, I would never make another sockpuppet and this whole thing would be over. Surely my constant vying for attention to appeal for chances is going to be heard some day. I assure you, I am intelligent, I am capable, and I can learn. I just want one more chance and I'll make it all up. It's like the foot-in-the-door phenomenon, except a very positive application of it. If I wait, I'll probably get bored and make another account.

All of your accounts are already blocked forever. If you want to make further requests/pleas for unblocking, do it from your main account, not this one. If you make another account, WP:Checkuser can always be used to connect it when an editor realizes it's connected to you based on behavior. Just stop for a while. Come back in a few months. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]