User talk:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"

It appears that your account was created on January 2 for the sole purpose of waging a long-term edit war on the lead of eBay.

For previous discussions see

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:Slightsmile reported by User:2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (Result: Semi) and
Prodego's block of one of your IPs.
The question of including mention of the logo in the lead was previously discussed at Talk:EBay#Logo styles--current only vs. both vs. none--mentioned in lead as in other articles. Evidently your proposal did not win consensus in this thread.

You are continuing the campaign of the IP who was warring about mention of the eBay logo in the lead. Your account name suggests this. In fact, you must be the person who my semiprotection was intended to stop. I'm leaving a ping for User:Prodego, who previously blocked one of your IPs. I am considering whether to block you as a disruption-only account, but may wait to hear your response. Continuing a long-term edit war with multiple IPs or accounts violates WP:SOCK. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE, ed. It is not "socking" to start an account if you were editing as an IP-only before. To foolishly suggest that it is would be like saying that once someone edits with an IP they "have no right to start an account." Also, you're trying to redefine "disruption" as "editing one article to match a WIKIPEDIA MOS and other articles that already follow that MOS." It's not "disruptive" to add something to an article to match what the MOS suggests! Plus, ed, disruptive escape orbit already agreed that having an older style mention didn't seem good in the LEAD. They're not disputing the one in the lead anyway, but the part that's NOT in the lead. Therefore, now that I put that NOT IN THE LEAD, what you're saying here doesn't even apply. So neither he nor you should be complaining.

Also, your point that prodego blocked me at the IP level holds no water because I waited until the block ENDED to create and then use my account. So if protecting the article from IP-only users stops only IP users from editing it, then there's nothing wrong with someone who has an account editing the article, especially if the editing does NOT go against consensus, the content of which you are obviously misunderstanding.

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you make a change at eBay that isn't supported by a prior talk page consensus you may be blocked, per above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at *your* talk page, ed. Why do you still come here instead of replying at my reply there on your page, ed?

You're not good at paying attention to what even *is* in the consensus, or even what explanation is given about changes that were made that were *not against* consensus, are you, ed? You just assume anything you want instead, don't you, ed? How about you actually *read* what the consensus says, that they don't want the previous style mentioned "IN THE LEAD," and then read my explanation that my edit is NOT in the lead, ed?

And nice job possibly recruiting another one of your little "friends" to go change that back for you so that you can appear to not be edit-warring, and so that you can make it look like you've got another "consensus" (but unwritten), huh, ed? I bet, though, that if I asked one of my friends to come and change that back for me, you'd accuse me of "sock-/meatpuppeting," wouldn't you, ed?

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging in disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in a pattern of disruptive editing, you will be blocked permanently from Wikipedia and all your edits will be reverted on sight. Please review Wikipedia's core content policies. In particular, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Thank you for your cooperation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sro23 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sro23 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]