User talk:Marlinette

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Marlinette, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Faradayplank (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlins ballpark[edit]

Hi, it looks like Marlins ballpark or Marlins' ballpark needs to be redirected WP:R. --Faradayplank (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's been taken care of. --Faradayplank (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cole[edit]

I was just patrolling new pages and added the tag so that people would add references. Its really not up to me to decide. Looks okay though.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was just trying to fix an error in an article about the Sydney Opera House when I see that I am blocked. I am accused of being a sock. Please let me know your mailing addresses so that I can send a copy of my identification to confirm my identity if this is what it takes for confirmation of my identity. I hope that the sock person that I am accused of did not commit vandalism. If so, please list the vandalism that has been done. If you cannot prove that you have blocked an innocent person, you should unblock. You may look over future edits to prove that unblocking was wrong. If future edits show vandalism, then undoing the unblock is probably not very difficult. I doubt blocking takes hours to perform.

Decline reason:

Per checkuser evidence. —Travis ^talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (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.

This RfCu seems to be the case in question. — Athaenara ✉ 01:07, 1 December 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Oh, now I see the reason for blocking. The only problem is that the reason is wrong. I can provide identification that I am not Todd. I wrote to Todd and asked him why he did what he did to cause others to be blocked. He said that Seattlehawk94 is just his throwaway account of Toddst1 and that his real name is Mark. If you are really blocking the socks, you should investigate Mark and also that IP 67.160.51.32 and look at his most recent posting. That is the real sock, not me. I located this IP from the RfCU link that someone listed below. If you are determined to show your power and block me, I will leave. I am not that anxious to correct that error on the Sydney Opera House unlike that Mark/Todd person who is up to no good. I just wanted to help out to make Wikipedia better. Happy Thanksgiving. Marlinette (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkusers have confirmed that you are using multiple accounts abusively. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:37, 1 December 2008 (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.

new checkuser proof[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

The checkuser said "confirmed" before and blocked Seattlehawk94 (look at the RFCU on Seattlehawk94, the sockpuppetmaster behind Dereks1x). The checkuser only (wrongly) says "possible" yet I am blocked (Fossett&Elvis checkuser request). Please unblock. Seattlehawk94 is the sockpuppetmaster which has caused me to be blocked. He was finally caught but has managed to sweettalk an unblock. Please unblock. Look at my contributions. Not a shred of vandalism. This change of heart from confirmed to innocent shows checkuser unreliability; this coupled with my checkuser only showing possible--I am not Seattlehawk94/Dereks1x

Decline reason:

The discussion below says there is Checkuser proof you are part of a group of multiple accounts; at this point who the sockmaster is or isn't is really irrelevant. You've used up your three requests; page to be protected. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (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.

NOTE TO JAYRON32, CHECKUSER PROVED THAT SEATTLEHAWK94 WAS CONFIRMED, NOW THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND. SEE.

Can you shed some light on the relationship between these accounts? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.02: For a new user (account created November 26, 2008), they know an awful lot about checkuser and the Dereks1x case. Even as an admin, it took me some digging to find the reference to Seattlehawk94. Apparently, Seattlehawk94 opened an RFCU on a suspected Dereks1x sock back on November 1 and somehow Alison botched the CU and blocked him. On November 22, a throwaway account and likely Dereks1x sock opened a RFCU trying to prove Seattlehawk94's innocence and offering up two more users, Oprahwasontv (talk · contribs) and Fossett&Elvis (talk · contribs).

Thatcher was skeptical of Alison's previous results on Seattlehawk94, but then "

Confirmed that SherlockHol (talk · contribs), BBC5 (talk · contribs), UN111 (talk · contribs), BeNiceToAll (talk · contribs), and Marlinette (talk · contribs) are the same person, and

Likely they are all also Dereks1x/Archtransit." He also confirmed that Fossett&Elvis is Dereks1x. Alison eventually unblocked Seattlehawk94 and apologized to him for her mistake. —Travis ^talk 14:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]