User talk:TheSyndromeOfaDown

This editor is a WikiGnome.

Welcome!

Hello, TheSyndromeOfaDown, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! -TFD (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to San Francisco International Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Jonathan Yip (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HkCaGu (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

If you run a check-user (not to mention compare the writing styles) you'll see that I'm not Jonathon Yip TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I'll admit I'm up to no good, but I'm not Jonathan Yip. Since the jig is up, I'll admit I am a sock, but not of Jonathan Yip." Self-admitted sock? Check. Admitted attempt to disrupt? Check. Unblock declined. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:14, 24 May 2013 (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.

I know this page is being watched. If you check my history you'll see that I largely do not edit aviation/transportation articles. Most of my contributions have been military history (the US war in Afghanistan) and on the Amy's Baking Company page. Don't take my word for it, run the SPI. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry TSOaD, but that is BS. Look at your very own contributions. Just remember that the fate of this account is in that Checkuser. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at them as well. I'll give you a hint as to who I really am - did Jonathan Yip ever call for an ANI investigation of user Steelbeard1 - check out ANI incident archive 797 item 66 wikihounding. I'll admit I'm up to no good, but I'm not Jonathan Yip. Since the jig is up, I'll admit I am a sock, but not of Jonathan Yip. If you check the ANI board from May 20ish and Steelbeard1's page, you'll see who I am. I'm also the disassembler (human beings were completely disassembled) and the creator of the "Jerry Sandusky Barnstar" as well as the "Manliness Award". Let's give credit where credit is due. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... whoever you are, you are now pretending to be me??? ANI incident archive 797 item 66 wikihounding was initiated by me and no one else. Who are you and why the hell are you claiming to be my sockpuppet? What the hell is going on here? ChakaKong^talk 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll tell you that this account will never be used again. Unfortunately, I don't believe you. I still think you're a Yip sock. A Checkuser will be "inspecting" in the next few days. I'll put it to you at this: you might have talk page access revoked soon if you don't stop posting this type of things. The fact is, no one can trust your posts, considering what you just admitted. Regrets, WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may have noticed my complaints about the bad edits to four articles which I reverted. Of course, the editor in question deleted my complaints. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked indefinitely, so nothing else will happen really. The SPI case will determine whether or not he is lying about the Jonathan Yip bit, but if it is positive, then he will likely be banned. Somehow, this could in theory, be a shared account used by multiple banned users. Not sure it is likely, but it is indeed possible. Thanks, Steel. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 19:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you, WT101. BTW, TSoaD accused me of wikihounding him. That is false. All the edits I complained to him about are regarding articles I follow. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your behavior is unacceptable. You clearly tried to bait User:Steelbeard1 into violating his interaction ban with User:ChakaKong. See the thread if you want to input. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 13:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clap clap clap! You've won this round (although for the wrong reasons - I'm not one of Yip's socks (I just saw the hubub over at the ANI board and picked things up from there). The ANI is trolling gold! Many lulz were had.

Don't you worry much... I've got oodles of IPs and six languages to work with. Do you remember that guy from Poland who trolled so effectively Wikipedia had to block an entire geographic region? Just food for thought.

Also, you might want to unlabel Lucia Black. She's innocent in this. She isn't a sock of mine or Yip's.

Oh, and this goes out to Baseball Bugs and Enigma -- Do you still love the skater girl? I hope you do! I remember!

Hugs and kisses! See you in 36Hrs TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many years are we going back here? Enigma^msg 20:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on WP for years (since 2006) Enigmaman TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant how many years are we going to back, to what you're referring to. Enigma^msg 01:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One More Thing!

Dennis Brown - I'm gonna ditch this account, but before I do so, I wanted to state for the record that Lucia Black had absolutely nothing to do with any of my actions. She is not a sock puppet, nor did she recruit me or my socks as meat puppets. She is innocent of any wrong doing. If you could forestall her being blocked and take down the warning, I would be most grateful and will disappear into the woodwork never to return. Fun is fun, but collateral damage - especially in the form of someone who apparently loves wiki'ing just seems wrong. I don't care if World Traveller 101 flips his shit or not, nor do I care about the other two who got caught up much (they were probably going to get on each others goats anyhow and get blocked on their own).

Oh - and I've decided to call what I did suicide socking. A throwaway puppet account that has the potential to take down other users through mimicry and over-zealous users. It was unintended, but meh.

Cheers

TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has nothing to do Lucia Black and I already figured that out, just in time. You are connected to the Jonathan Yip account, or if not, still causing problems. But she did almost get caught in the crossfire, enough that I had endorsed a CU for her. You are right that there is often collateral damage, and another admin might have just blocked her as an "obvious sock". I trust you really don't want collateral damage, but this time you got lucky. It isn't personal against you, but you see what can happen, and what almost happened. Maybe it is time to do something different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sallieparker

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).

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

Request reason:

Not for me, but for SallieParker My sock got mixed up as one of hers. See below for details TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your altruism is touching, but surely Sallieparker can speak for herself. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2013 (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.