User talk:Pickbothmanlol

Extended content

Block reinstated You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerenetalk 12:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Note to reviewing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Five-year-old deletion discussion reopened for the background. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I understand my block. I honestly found it nice to be given a second chance at editing for a brief moment even though it would most likely not last long. Despite the block being reinstated, thanks for letting me have another chance at it. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 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). Pickbothmanlol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I let my strict behavior get the best of me since my second chance. While it might have started off okay, it gone downhill because of my nomination of multiple articles that had a promotional tone. I really wanted to change but it changed too fast for me to adapt to a new life on Wikipedia and got me thrown back to my talk page. I doubt a third chance will be likely but I just want to give my apologies to the editors whose hard work and time took into those articles I nominated for deletion. Even if I am unblocked, I won't be as active as I was the last two times and I am considering semi-retirement and I want all my nominations for deletion withdrawn with my most sincerest apologies. Decline reason: Your reopening of the VFD was not appropriate, especially having been unblocked five days previously as a gesture of good faith. While you may understand the block, I'm not convinced that we're likely to see any improvement here, especially so soon. Come back in a few months, but I'd expect your unblocking would need to have consent from the community for your third chance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:38, 26 November 2009 (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. I am thankful for that gesture of good faith. Please reconsider. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 16:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 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). Pickbothmanlol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Despite being recommended to come back in a few months, I feel that I can show signs of improvement regardless of how soon the most recent block has occured and I am willing to make a promise on that statement. Decline reason: Your history does not lead me to believe that an unblock will benefit the encyclopedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:06, 30 November 2009 (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. I'm not going to do this one, since I declined to unblock one of your other socks and don't think your last unblock was a good idea, but I would ask why we should believe you? You have admitted to a huuuuge pile of socks(see this revision: [1]), you rapidly began engaging in disruptive behavior very shortly after being unblocked last time, and you have not given us any real reason to unblock you now other than your "belief" that you can avoid doing it again. I would strongly caution any admin reviewing this request to make sure they are familiar with the history of this user and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pickbothmanlol before considering unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I am aware of that list, however if you did have the time to look through the contributions of each one you should notice one obvious trait. That trait being many failed attempts at starting out clean without having to see that one single category ever again. It has become obvious that the community of this site has always had that one tiny flaw being that attempting to argue with the administration of this site is pointless. All those people that were unfairly blocked because their bloody edits look simular to a user that I have no relation with YET I have no choice but to lie that I am indeed that account because reasoning on Wikipedia is as pointless as asking Adolf Hitler not to be hateful to Jews. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Fourty-two attempts to start off new, FOURTY-TWO ATTEMPTS TO LEAVE THE PAST TO TURN TO DUST, FOURTY-FILLIPING-TWO ATTEMPTS TO NO LONGER DEAL WITH THIS CRAP. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) The obvious question you need to ask yourself is "what am I doing wrong that has seen me burn through 42 accounts?". Crafty (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Being unable to prove I had no relations with the first user listed on my first SPI case led me into this mess. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Well, I would respectfully disagree. You've got a history of troublesome constributions which have led you to receive adverse attention. The patience of community has worn thin and thus you find yourself here. You need to reflect on that rather than seeking to blame circumstance for your predicament. Crafty (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I would find it more convient if you could simplify that comment so I can better understand what your trying to tell me. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I think he's trying to tell you that you are making up rationalizations for your actions that do not make sense. You were unblocked this last time as a display of good faith to see if you really had changed, and you rapidly proved that you were unable to edit Wikipedia in a non-disruptive fashion. Don't sit here and play the innocent victim and expect anyone to actually believe it. Many of your admitted previous socks were outright vandals, leaving messages like "I am AndyCrogonka and I will not be stopped" and so forth. Anyway, you've done enough as this account to be blocked regardless of any connection to your monstrous farm of abusive sockpuppets. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Hello Hi, Pickbothmanlol now that you are unblocked I recommend taking a look at WP:CSD for cases where a page may be summarily deleted so that you don't flood pages at XfD. Do be careful with it though. Triplestop x3 02:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) December 2009 Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images, however, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Template:User netscape, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page.Nonfree images are not permitted outside of the article namespace, with only a few exemptions. Please do not revert the removal of nonfree images from a template again. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously. No non-free images in template space. Got it? DS (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Yes. -Pickbothmanlol- 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Featured articles I have reverted your nomination of Netscape Navigator 9 at Featured article review. That process is for re-assessing articles that are already featured. If you wish to nominate an article for consideration to become featured, the correct process is at Featured article candidates. However, please read the instructions at the top of the page carefully: if you wish to nominate an article that is not primarily your work, you should consult the significant contributors to the article prior to nominating it. Maralia (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) ANI Hello, Pickbothmanlol. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disruptive editing. The thread is User:Pickbothmanlol. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC) As a result of the ANI discussion above (permanent link), I have reimposed your indefinite block for persistent disruption due to a lack of general editing competence. The block may be lifted after a few months if you can cogently explain how your condition, medical or otherwise, has changed in such a way that you will no longer make disruptive edits, and if you demonstrate your competence by drafting a new article on your user talk page that meets, or comes close to meeting, WP:GACR.  Sandstein  18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Noting here for the record (in the case of any unblock request) that Pickbothmanlol has created many sockpuppet accounts to continue his disruptive editing, as reported by checkuser at [2].  Sandstein  06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Ways I can still try to help contribute to the project while being blocked? {{Helpme}} Are there any ways I can still try to help contribute to the project while being blocked? -Pickbothmanlol- 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC) No. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) ...especially not when you evade your indefinite block by using sock puppets like User:BigFuzzyKitty. MuZemike 02:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Aelogo black on blue.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aelogo black on blue.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammy the Seeker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CrackedLeo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User-Cold

Template:User-Cold has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. B (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 03:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2013

It looks like the editor who added the banned user template substituted it where it should have been transcluded.

The following wikitext:

Extended content

{{Mbox |type = notice |image = [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|45px]] |text = <div> '''This user {{#if:|has been|is}} [[Wikipedia:List of banned users|banned]]{{#switch:{{{time}}}|indefinitely|indef|indefinite= indefinitely|}} from editing Wikipedia{{#if:|{{#switch:{{{time}}}|indefinitely|indef|indefinite=| for a period of {{{time}}}}}}}{{#if:| by {{{by}}}}}.''' Please review the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] before commenting or unblocking. <small>(see: [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}}} block log]{{·}} [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]{{·}} [http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}} current autoblocks]{{#if:|{{·}} {{{link}}}}}{{#if:|{{·}} {{{link2}}}}}{{#if:|{{·}} {{{link3}}}}})</small> </div> }}[[Category:Banned Wikipedia users]]{{#switch: |= |indefinitely|indef|indefinite= |[[Category:Wikipedia users banned for a limited period]] }}{{NOINDEX}}

should be replaced with

{{banned user}} Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)