User talk:Swe41

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Lucid dream, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop adding the so-called "Errau" theory in the article. The sources you are using are not reliable. Blogspots and other wikis are not reliable sources. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lucid dream. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Lucid Dream. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Lucid Dream. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Lucid dream, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called "new" citations are false

Your so-called "new" citations are false. They do not mention the "Erraou theory anywhere. It is simply not an encyclopedic theory and Wikipedia cannot be used as an incubator for new and untried theories. You will be reported and blocked if you continue your edit-warring. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please check our conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own theories. Especially if they are not notable. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one time exemptions

Unfortunately there can be no one-time exemptions to Wikipedia's policies. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you above about avoiding personal attacks, that was followed by this edit. Please consider this as a final warning. Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this combined with this appears as an attempt of "killing the character" to achieve your goal. Please don't. Well-being of wikipedia and on wikipedia crucially depends on collaboration with others. I can help you improve wikipedia, but would have to quench any effort to bother its editors. Materialscientist (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1] please examine WP:OWNTALK and WP:AGF. Materialscientist (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I know neither you nor Dr.K, that I make my judgment based on your (both of you) edits, and that his "special contributions" status as you called it has no effect in this matter. Materialscientist (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what hassle my talking to Dr.K can save. I'll talk to him when there is a good reason for that. Materialscientist (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Materialscientist

I was not going to include this in my report, you are right, this isn't an actual crime (so to speak) I was just bringing to your attention to strangeness of Dr.K's behaviour

STOP

Nope. You're being a pest. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive

Please stop making unfounded sock puppet accusations against Seb az86556. You provide no suspected socks, no evidence whatsoever. Please stop! Jarkeld (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I found the first garbage-report you filed too ridiculous to take to ANI, but if you insist, we can discuss it there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seb az86556, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jarkeld (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

No-one seems to have properly welcomed you, so,

Welcome!

Hello, Swe41, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Now, you seem to have run into strife right from the start. Not a brilliant thing, but liveable. First of all, it's highly unlikely a well-established user will run a separate IP just to vandalise, so your sockpuppet report is probably misplaced. Don't worry though, I doubt you'll be punished for a failed case. Secondly, per the talk page guidlines, you should rarely, if ever, remove or alter the statements of others. Don't worry too much about breaking so many rules if you're new, everyone does it. If you need help or advice, try asking at the help desk, keep questions short and concise! Lastly, never, never, ever, edit under an anonymous IP. As you've seen, bad things happen. Additionally, don't ask others for their IP address, not considered polite. Oh well, hope your experience picks up soon, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI for Seb

I have now deleted your SPI case against Seb for the second time. Twice now you have failed to provide any actual evidence, and I'm pretty sure you're doing this merely as revenge. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some pointers

Hi,

I was roaming the AN/I board when I came across your report. First of all let me say that I do not know Dr K nor Seb, nor am I an admin. I am not a prolific editor of any stripe but I have been around here and nosed into enough cases on the notice board that your current course will lead to a great deal of stress, frustration and general discontent with Wikipedia which may ultimately end with you being indefinitely blocked. I emphasise that this is not a threat as I do not have the tools to do anything of the sort. As I understand it, you're fairly new here, so at the risk of seeming somewhat condescending (if it does sound that way, I apologise, I want to start off on common ground), I might give a few suggestions. It is entirely up to you whether you take my suggestions at face value or not, there will be no hard feelings.

First of all, it seems that you've been bitten somewhat. This can happen when a new user shows up and tries to do too much at once and other more long time editors will see this and start throwing wiki policies around assuming you are familiar with them. It is highly advisable to take the time to read the links that others send you to, as I have this WP:BITE.

Secondly, I read that you have been trying to edit the Lucid Dreams article with what is being seen as original research. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia as per this policy WP:OR. Wikipedia is a tertiary source meaning that it is only allowed to publish information which has already been published elsewhere, which brings on the second and third pieces of advice. Any edits made to an article must be verified, as per WP:V, by reliable sources, as per WP:RS. These are very important policies that help protect Wikipedia from legal proceedings for allowing libelous entries, but they also serve to ensure that everything entered is confirmed elsewhere.

This follows on nicely to conflict of interest, covered by WP:COI. Although it is not forbidden for editors to edit articles with which they have an interest or are affiliated with, but this affiliation must be made known so that other editors can scrutinise the edits to ensure that they conform to a neutral point of view, as per WP:NPOV.

Now, I've also had a look at your interactions with Dr K. Now, I see you raised a few complaints about how he was removing your posts to his talk page. All users are allowed to do this. The talk pages are for communicating with each other, but if an editor dislikes any posts to his page s/he is entitled to remove such posts. This is not an attempt to hide or remove evidence of malfeasance. All edits entered into Wikipedia are saved in the page histories which are accessible via the view history tab at the top of the page. Any editor may look into the page history and see what actions have been performed on the page. Looking at particular entries in the history page is accessing the different versions of the pages between edits, these are known as "diffs", which admins will often request when editors raise claims of policy violation. Only admins are able to delete actual edits, which is sometimes done in the case of potential real world ramifications as in the case of protecting minors, threats of violence/suicide, outing of an editor's real identity (this is covered in WP:OUT).

My final point is a clarification. You've misunderstood the "special contributions" of an editor. This is not some special standing or ranking system. It is actually the page that lists your contributions to Wikipedia. At the top of your screen, you'll find "My Contributions" clicking on that will call up your edits to Wiki. If you look at the address bar, it'll have something like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/<username>. The "special" refers to the fact that the contributions exist in a particular wiki space. Another example is user space; user space is addressed as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:<username>.

The final thing, which is the most important piece of advice I can give, is to bear first and foremost in mind the assumption of good faith, WP:AGF. Hopefully I've cleared a few things up. Let me emphasise again that I'm not trying to berate you for your actions, and if it looks that way I'll apologise before any misunderstandings arise. Best regards --Blackmane (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is for your latest attack on User:Dr.K., and it is indefinite because we need to see some convincing evidence that you will change your extremely disruptive and tendentious editing before a release can be considered -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Swe41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OMG. This has been a HUGE misunderstanding. I have just looked at the comment made on Dr.K's discussion page, and I assure you 100% that I did not, or take any part in writing that abusive comment. My evidence is as follows:

If you use logic, why would I apologise to Dr.K[1], and then make a stupid comment like that? The answer was no, I would not.

At approximately the same time as the abusive comment was made to Dr.K, I was actually talking to Blackmane, were I actually said "point taken" and I assured him it would not happen again [2]. It makes no sense that I would be simultaneously writing this comment, and then writing an abusive comment, which would be contradictory, would it not?

Also, and most importantly, even though the comment made was under my IP address, let me remind you that I am on a local network, meaning that it could have been anyone on the local network (almost 1000 people in fact) that could have typed that malicious comment, and the fact that it says "if you mess with my boy" implies that this idiotic person was referring to myself as his "boy", though I assure you that I do not know him/her.

Finally, could I please remind you of WP:AGF-the assumption of good faith, and let me assure you that I did not make this comment, and that it would make no sense for me to do so, seeing as I was making various apologies just beforehand.

Please make the right decisionSwe41 (talk) 1:42 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Sorry. You're the using the same computer as the IP you claimed. You are, in fact, the only user of the IP that made the edit in question. TN X Man 18:22, 4 April 2011 (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.

So you're saying that someone else on the LAN just happened to know who you were talking to at the time, and decided to add their own attack? I guess that's possible, but its style is very similar indeed to some of the messages you have been leaving. Anyway, I think we need to see what this turns up, at least. (And please stop demanding an assumption of good faith - we start out like that, but you blew your supply when it became blatantly clear that you were trying to get your personal material into Wikipedia while fully understanding that it did not belong) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get off now and do something else, and I'd prefer not to handle the unblock request myself anyway as I find it hard to believe your claims, especially as you blamed previous IP disruption that was happening on the same pages you were editing on other users of your LAN too. So I think I should leave it someone else to decide, who is welcome to unblock without needing my agreement - but the reviewer should be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Filing a report on: User:Seb az86556, and previous SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swe41/Archive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block is justified by the duck test which states that "if it swims, quacks, and looks like a duck, then it is probably a duck," suggesting that if the IP was acting like your earlier personal attacks, we consider you to be the same as the IP. You've received tons of warnings for incivility on top of that, and we just cannot allow that on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to chime here. If you'll check my talk page history, his response to me was at 16:40 while the attack occurred at 16:41. If it were swe41 posting as the ip, it would have to be some pretty quick work to respond on my talk page, log out and hit Dr K's page within a minute even using tabs in a browser especially allowing for a busy LAN's response time etc etc. Just a thought.....--Blackmane (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - with two browsers you can do it in seconds -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - with two browsers you can do it in seconds 86.146.143.231 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see... sneaky :p I rarely use 2 browsers so it didn't occur to me (despite having 3 installed) -- Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 2

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).

Swe41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to the comments above, I found out who did it, and I assure you that this will not happen again.

Also, yet again, please assume good faith of myself, as I did not make the comment, and as Blackmane pointed out, It would be very unlikely for me to have done so anyway, and as I said, I have taken the appropriate measures to ensure that this does not happen again. And I suppose that I could make yet another apology to Dr.K (on behalf of the person who did it)...so there isn't much more I can say really. I didn't do It. I found you who did it. It will not happen again. I will apologise to Dr.K, I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia as it is only fair.

Oh, and just as an afterthought, If I did make that comment, I would have gone to the trouble of using a High anonymous proxy server, as well as using the software "Peerblock", to ensure that the Admin at Wikipedia could never trace me back. So therefore it was not me.

Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per my comment below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:23, 5 April 2011 (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.

Let's assume, for the moment, that someone else sat down at your computer and logged you out to post anonymously. Why would they attack someone with whom you were in a dispute, unless they discussed it with you or were otherwise familiar with the situation? The timing is also suspect - as noted, posts were within one minute of each other, from the same computer. Which means you were standing there when this other person posted. Even if it is indeed multiple individuals, when they edit in concert (as appears to be the case here), it is termed Meatpuppetry. For the purposes of the enforcement of policy, such editors (or editors and IPs, as here) are treated as one individual. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Blackmane" reasoning won't wash either, as Blackmane now agrees - I've already demonstrated how easy it is to post twice in quick succession, and you clearly sound like you have strong computer knowledge -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal 3

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).

Swe41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

to reply to the decline reason above, Let me remind you that I am on a Local network, meaning that there are approximately 350 computers in the college grounds connected to the one IP address, and each computer user can consequently look at each user's history (which is how they found Dr.K's talk page, through looking at the local history). This happened to be during the time when I was on. But let me remind you that I was talking to Blackmane at the time of this occuring (and let me remind you ZEBEDEE that Blackmane did not agree with you, he only accepted the fact that it was a possibility).

And let me also remind you that If I had desired to abuse Dr.K, I would have hidden my IP to cover myself-this is a fact.

Finally, when looking at all my 3 appeals, it is clear to everyone that the evidence that I have shown far outweighs any counter-arguments or questions from the Admin. I can only assume that the only reason to why you are continuing to block me is because of prejudices and "past experiences", which is a direct violation of WP:AGF-assumption of good faith, and WP:COMMONSENSE- use of common sense.

So please please please please please unblock me so I can continue contributing to Wikipedia!!!!, and I assure you that this will not happen again, and my name will never be included in any negative way ever again!!!!!!!!

Another afterthought, Could I have another Admin (one who has never encountered with me before) to deal with this situation please?? So they can essentially look at the situation with an unbiased view?? Thank you (Do not misunderstand me-I am not implying anything)

Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As an uninvolved admin, I am declining your unblock request. The evidence is quite clear and you are still being abusive even on this talk page. Now instead of denying knowing anything about the IP, you are now going with a WP:BROTHER excuse. Please note that continuing to make essentially the same unblock request without addressing the reasons for your block will result in your talk page privileges being revoked. --Selket ^Talk 16:32, 5 April 2011 (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.

Just to make it clear what is being said about your edits - the evidence is that both you and the IP edited from the same *computer*, not just from the same IP address, so how do you explain that? And as for the "Blackmane" argument, it makes no difference whether or not Blackmane agrees, because I provided conclusive proof of how simple it is to edit from a logged-in account and from an IP at the same time using the same computer - so any argument that you would be unlikely to be able to do it is nonsense. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an unbiased Admin please look at my case now?? Swe41 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Zebedee

Zebedee, I WAS NOT USING THE SAME GOD-DAMN COMPUTER AS THE PERSON WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry if that seemed aggressive, but I hate it when people accuse you of something you haven't done.

Where is the evidence to suggest that the same computer was used?? Swe41 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can use WP:CheckUser.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the reply to your first Appeal by TN X Man, above - as part of the SPI investigation, a CheckUser check was done, and that reveals details of your computer and not just your IP address. I'll drop TN X Man a line to indicate that you are apparently challenging the technical evidence. And really, shouting at me just for reminding you of what has already been said but which you have been ignoring is not going to help your case here - it is not demonstrating an ability to deal with disagreement in a calm and collegial manner but is, in fact, demonstrating more of the aggression you showed towards a number of editors in your earlier dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Zebedee 2

Ok, I see your point, but consider this. Providing that you DID use the checkuser, there are 350 computers on the college ground that are exactly the same make, run under the same local network, the same IP address, controlled by the same Admin team, all users can be accessed by each and every computer within that boarding school, and each file directory and drives are shared. In short, the computers run in the exact same manner. Please, from an unbiased point of view, can this be the reason to why the checkuser was fooled?? And if you say No, then you are misinformed or lying, because I am telling you that I did not do this!!!! God, this is getting tedious now.Swe41 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Seb was aggresive, but was he reprimanded? No is the answer. And note that I apologised for that outburst-something that Seb failed to do.

No more personal attacks please or you will NOT be able to edit your own talk page. In NAT, all your computers, while identical, use different ports to access the internet, and it seems the ports used by the IP AND your account were identical.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, while all your computers might have been configured identically, there has to be something different in the IP packets to distinguish them, otherwise you couldn't get the right web pages back to the right computers - and that's what NAT does. There are other ways to identify individual computers too, though I don't know what is accessible by CheckUser. And finally, I'd strongly suggest you do not accuse me of lying, and do not try rekindling your dispute with Seb. I've informed the person who did the CheckUser check and who declined your initial unblock request, and Jasper Deng has offered some information too, so if you want to stand any chance of being unblocked you will need to discuss it calmly and civilly with those technical people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my Case

Despite your generous offer to ask for more information, I must politely decline your offer, though I appreciate it.

Wow. Just wow. I am being accused of something I have not done. The admin dealing with this are biased. That's a simple fact. You are accusing me of personal attacks, and yet Zebedee is clearly just picking on me. None of the Admin are weighing your own accusations against my evidence. You do not even consider it. Zebedee criticises the use of shouting, but clearly, he turned his head when I filed a report against Seb for Shouting at me, swearing, and calling me a pest. He is therefore a hypocrite. That is a fact.

Now I see that I cannot win, because none of you are true unbiased admin of wikipedia. I tried to be nice. I tried to take in your points. I tried to do the right thing, to report Seb for swearing and shouting. I apologised to both Blackmane and Dr.K for tampering inappropriately with the lucid dreams article. I accept that. But I know that I have been falsely accused, and I know that no one can see sense (despite what that obviously faulty Checkuser software says), and I know that I cannot appeal. So though this angers me, I will take the advice of Zebedee, I will keep a cool head, by knowing that everyone else is wrong, and I will ask you this question:

At what point will I be unblocked??? (I do note that It says that I have been blocked indefinitely)

Oh, and just to reply to salket, I did not use WP:BROTHER as an accuse. If you looked properly, you would have seen that I said that I found out who did it.

regards Swe41 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be unblocked and I am sure your talk page edit access with also be revoked shortly. ZooPro 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Guys, I did not do anything. What do you want me to do, get this guy to email an apology to you? please tell me?!? Swe41 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each computer connects to the internet using a network access device with a unique identifier. A Checkuser has confirmed that the computer you use while logged in is the same uniquely-identifiable computer that was used by the IP editor. We've asked this checkuser to come and confirm his findings. Until then, here's where we stand - you've been blocked for harassing another editor, and for doing so using multiple identities (IP and acct). Your responses here, while plausible, do not hold up to the technical evidence available. When confronted with this technical evidence, your response has been, essentially, "...nuh-uh." So, your first step to getting unblocked is to admit what happened - show that you intend, if unblocked, to edit within policy and without harassing other editors. Any further personal attacks will likely result in the loss of your ability to edit this talk page - which would likely end any shot you have at getting unblocked. Please calm down and let the checkusers look into this. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! asked me to confirm my findings. You claimed to be using the same IP address that made the offending edit on Dr. K's talk page ("even though the comment made was under my IP address" - from above). All of the technical evidence I reviewed indicates that the only person using that IP to edit Wikipedia was you. TN X Man 17:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tnxman. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Ultraexactzz. Ok, fine. Checkuser said that the my user was still logged in during the time the comment was made...well yes, because I was still using the computer at the time of the incident, more specifically, doing work. Thank you, by the way, UltraExactZZ, for atleast acknowledging my reasons. But my reasons stand. I admit my user for windows XP was still logged in during the time of the incident, but this is because that I was using the computer still, to finish my work in fact. I then logged on to my wikipedia account to find the comment that was made, and that I had been blocked.
- You are solely responsible for your account's security. If it is still compromised, it will have to be blocked permanently.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Tnxman. Of course that the only person using my IP was me, because I am the only person with a wikipedia account which is used in my college, and I have researched checkuser, and i found out that it can only find other users on the my IP, if that user has a wikipedia account, which they do not. So therefore, that is why checkuser can only find person on my IP, because I am the only person with a wikipedia account on my IP address, and the person that abused Dr.K did not, so therefore the computer he was using is not traceable or identifiable. [and if you say it is, I would have to disagree, because any website or forum able to hack, and gain access to a computer's log-in catalogue (a computer login that is not affiliated with wikipedia in anyway), is illegal by law]
- It is traceable. We look at your IP packets, and the ports you were on. We look at all the network-related things, and therefore we cannot look at your user account setup.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do know alot about computers.

Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry you feel ill-used, but it is apparent to me that no explanation that we can give will be accepted by you. Since your unblock requests have been reviewed by 3 different administrators, I don't see any use of further unblocks and have removed your access to this page. If you would like to appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee you may do so by following the instructions in the block notice when you try to edit a page. Best wishes in your future endeavors. Syrthiss (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]