User talk:76.167.244.204

tagging as self-admitted sock. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Why this time? I did not create any new accounts at all, this is an IP ADRESS, not an actual named user page. I've done nothing wrong on this "account".

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, even though this is not an actual "account", nor have I created any new one since Moleman9002, and I am editing anomymously. I also have not done anything wrong while editing anonymously

Decline reason:

You are blocked. You the person. Not you the account name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:01, 14 October 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.

Also, you can still block the creation of new accounts from me, I would just like to be able to edit anonymously.76.167.244.204 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I'll just wait until the two-week block is over, then.76.167.244.204 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just one week left-the block is half over. SPLEE!76.167.244.204 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH BOI! Just four more days! I can't wait to bomb Yngvarr! (Not really though):()76.167.244.204 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the block by 10 days, on the basis of the above comments, for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say in your block reason, "Promises to resume vandalism"- I never said such a thing, I only said I would "wait until the two week block is over", then go back to editing. Who ever said that I'm planning to do vandalism, rather than constructive edits?76.167.244.204 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NOW I only have a week left to go before I can resume editing, which is great because there are SO many pages that I've been so anxious to change during the past few weeks. I'll shut up until then.76.167.244.204 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)(Moleman 9000)[reply]

YES! YES! I am free! I WON!76.167.244.204 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cue The Price is Right fail music. JuJube (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of characters in the Blue Dragon series has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. °≈§→ Roboma eyhem ←§≈° 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 5 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I have not actually DONE any vandalism on this IP account, and was not "bragging about continuing to vandalize", I wrote in the talk page of the CD-i Zelda games that I would continue to add YTP information EVENTUALLY, and never actually got the chance to- in fact, shortly after the comment I made a Non YTP related, entirely valid edit to the page regarding the storyline of Wand of Gamelon. I do NOT consider my YTP edits to be vandalism, and wish to find it a place in Wikipedia in the most valid and encyclopedic way possible. I consider the users who REVERT my edits to be vandals, as I do every user who deletes perfectly good information just because it does not meet a certain guideline, regardless of what it (the subject of the article) is, as is the case with the mass-merging of character articles conducted by users such as TTN in recent years. My edits are not intended as vandalism, and percieving them as such is a misunderstanding. I honestly intend to make edits regarding YTP that are as constructive as possible, and when I said I would wait until I was ready to, I meant that I was taking time to prepare my case.76.167.244.204 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What part of "we don't trust you" don't you understand? Your philosophy of editing as expressed above indicates unequivocally that you are a tendentious editor. The only case you are making is for the inevitable community ban. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 6 November 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.

I would advise you to step back and remove yourself from Wikipedia for a few months. No socking, no IP editing, no anything. After a few months, you may find that people are willing to give you another chance. I would also step away from the entire YTP area. It does not meet notability requirements yet, and if you keep adding it it just decreases the chance that you will ever get any content from it on Wiki, especially if you are community banned. (A community ban would mean anything you ever do is reversible on sight, regardless of merit.) Take it easy, stop breaking rules and leave wiki, and come back sometime in 2009. Otherwise you are just going to continue burning bridges. Templarion (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Again

I have been blocked again for a month for "block eveasion". I have done NOTHING that could be considered unconstructive or vandalism AT ALL since my brief reyurn to editing yesterday. I made some changes to a handful of pages, and altered the mention of the remixes on the CD-i Zelda games page, however, I did not use the term "Youtube Poop" and was merely restating what was already there in a more accurate way. My block was given no legitimate reason other than the fact that I am me, and I wish for this to be corrected.76.167.244.204 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Given no legitimate reason for block, not notified on talk page whatsoever, see above

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand- you are blocked. That means you need to stop editing. Completely. Your career at Wikipedia is over. You are fired. You need to clear out your desk, leave the building, and stop hanging around the coffee machine alarming the secretaries. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 November 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.

The blocking notification on this page says that I am welcome to make useful contributions after the block is over, which I have been attempting to do. All of the IP blocks I have had were temporary, and the most recent one seems to be for the exact same reason as the last one, which I served fairly. You seem to think that I am community banned or something, and don't agree with the terms of my block, and think that I should be banned forever, which is COMPLETELY unfair. What you and the person who blocked me are doing is totally against civil decency.76.167.244.204 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's unfair? You are blocked from editing. That means you aren't allowed to edit. Not that you can log out and keep editing. If you think you've solved the problem that made blocking you necessary, make your case for unblocking at your account, rather than just evading the block -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS blocked from editing, TEMPORARILY. That block expired, and I was shortly after blocked again for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. This block isn't valid!76.167.244.204 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the block log, User:Moleman 9000 is indefinitely blocked for vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. When I started IP editing, I was blocked for two weeks due to that issue. When that block wore off, I was soon bloked again, for "bragging about continuing to vandalize". Now, I'm blocked again, for the same reason as the first time. I HAVE ALREADY SERVED MY TIME FOR THE "CRIME" OF BEING AN IP SOCK. Since when is it fair for someone to serve two seperate sentances for the same crime?76.167.244.204 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you're confused. When User:Moleman 9000 was indefinitely blocked, you were indefinitely blocked. That's the block that's relevant. You're blocked forever, or until you make a persuasive case that you should be unblocked. Every time you edit Wikipedia, you are violating your block, so you'll be blocked every time you edit Wikipedia, until you finally accept that you really are blocked and go away. I hope that happens soon, but if it doesn't, it's not that difficult for me to keep blocking you every few months as you re-appear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no, you're confused. The block term that was given to me for being Moleman was 2 weeks. I served that block out willingfully. The block was 2 weeks, not permanent. I began editing anonymously to start fresh and leave my original account and the controversy associated with it behind. You are focusing on something that happened in the past, and is over now.76.167.244.204 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't believe me, doesn't make you right. IPs are almost never indefinitely blocked, because they are so often reassigned to a different user. Instead, we'll just keep blocking for a few months at a time until eventually you stop using it to avoid your block. You, the human being sitting at your computer, are blocked from using Wikipedia indefinitely. You don't get to 'start fresh,' because you're demonstrated sufficiently that you just aren't able to edit the encyclopedia appropriately. You can choose to stop editing, or we can just keep blocking you whenever you edit again, but you really truly are blocked, whether you believe it or not. I understand the rules pretty well, which is why the community trusted me with the position of administrator. You not only don't understand the rules, but appear to be unable to understand them- after hours of conversation, you still don't even understand the simple rule 'don't edit while blocked.' That's why you're indefinitely blocked.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's confused here, FisherQueen. I was blocked for TWO WEEKS ONLY. NOT indefinately. That was my time of punishment before I could fully transfer my services to this account. A BLOCK CANNOT BE EXTENDED AFTER IT HAS ENDED. My ORIGINAL account is indefinately blocked, NOT MY IP ACCOUNT. As you can see from Templarion's comment, my original indef. block has not carried over to my IP, and I was TEMPORARILY blocked upon my switching to it. I hope the others see this conversation and correct your error.76.167.244.204 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and good luck with your strategy of making up rules and then saying them in all caps. But if I notice you editing Wikipedia from this ip, or from any other account, when User:Moleman 9000, which is you, is blocked, I'll re-block to prevent you from circumventing your block, until such time as you accept that you are really blocked and stop editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I shouldn't even participate here, but here goes, and FisherQueen can slap me with a trout for opening my mouth, if she desires... Moleman was indefinitely blocked for this edit (amongst others, but that's the formal reason). The block is on the person. Not the account name. Not the IP address. You, the person, could move to Siberia, yet the block will still apply, because it is a person who is blocked. You've broken that indef block by creating two named accounts. You broke that by editing anonymously from two IP addresses. The indef block remains applied to you, a person. The reason the IP was blocked for two weeks is that they (the admins) don't like to give long blocks to IP addresses. But when they see you, the indef blocked user, editing from that same IP address, they'll simply increase the duration of the block. You are invited here to Wikipedia to edit constructively, yet you did not abide by the rules of Wikipedia, and that invitation was permanently revoked. If you disagree with any of the policies of Wikipedia, you are free to appeal to Ceasar. As I see it, the admins have repeatedly denied your unblock requests for reasons which you simply don't accept. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No trout for you, Yngvarr. At this point, it's been explained to this user so clearly and so often that I can only assume that she is only pretending not to understand, and I probably shouldn't have wasted my time responding again. And yet I did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, I am a boy, and secondly, I apologise for my attack on TTN, and I have done nothing of the sort ever since. What I am doing is intended to be for the good of Wikipedia. The brutal enforcement of guidelines that has occured in recent years needs to stop. Wikipedia should strive to simply provide as much information as possible on as many things as possible, and it shouldn't matter whether or not something is cited as long as it's true. You have been doing everything in your power to stop me, and I feel that I am the victim here and that you should leave me alone. And EXPLAIN TEMPLARION'S COMMENT SAYING THAT I CAN GO ON EVENTUALLY.76.167.244.204 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for User:Moleman 9000 is still using this ip to avoid his indefinite block. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 4Kids Entertainment. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -sesuPRIME 23:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:24, 10 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've long since given up on my efforts to restore Wikipedia. I have become a Youtube Pooper and am the number 1 contributor at the SpongeBob SquarePants wiki. Over the past few weeks I've made some miscelaneous and entirely constructive edits to a few articles which I happened to be visiting and saw it in my best interest to correct. You are banning me for something that ended a year ago.76.167.244.204 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Do you really not understand? You, personally, are blocked. Not this IP. Not other IPs. You, yourself, personally, are a sockpuppeteer and are not allowed to edit here at all. Using an account or an IP. Unless and until you are unblocked via a request made on you original account page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 14 November 2009 (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.

No, I just blocked you because you're User:Moleman 9000, an indefinitely blocked user. If you want to appeal that block, it's more useful to do that on your original account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what did I do wrong this time? I've only been making constructive edits, and the Moleman incident has long since blown over.76.167.244.204 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So request an unblock, if you like, on your actual user page. I only blocked you because someone else recognized your pattern, pointed out to me that you were active again. Indefinitely means 'forever, or until you make a reasonable case for unblocking and are unblocked.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.