User talk:Fadeintoyou

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Rray (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbook.com

If you continue to edit war and spam this article, I'll ask for an administrator to intervene, and you'll be blocked from editing. Rray (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sportsbook.com_spammer about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fade - seriously bro, we WELCOME newcomers and additions to articles, but the edits must be done within the very Wiki guidelines that you constantly quote (WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:RS and so forth) and you must WORK WITH other editors to build articles. Being combative isn't going to get you anywhere. Take heed or you will likely get blocked from editing. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can get new IPs faster than you can block them. I'm trying to bring some truth to the world about what is, in effect, a criminal organization. Why don't you stop treating me like I'm the f'ing bad guy and ask the original author HIS agenda and why he's so zealous about protecting his pro-Sportsbook.com propaganda? It's comical that every Wiki pseudo-infraction I've been accused of is blatantly displayed in the original article!Fadeintoyou (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. First, there is a policy that asks for civility here. Second, don't think you are the first person to have ever wanted an article written their way without compromise. There are methods to preventing that. Last warning, I will have to prevent you from editing if you do not immediately change your attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Ricky said. I'm finished trying to discuss anything with you until you stop being such a hothead. Cool off. Then maybe you can help us improve the article. That won't happen with your current attitude. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enough of this. You have been repeatedly told the same thing: stop screwing around, act like an adult in conversation and quit accusing everyone who disagrees of bad faith. You can request an unblock by doing what's in the box but I doubt you'll find much sympathy with your attitude. It's not that long a block so stop it and discuss it reasonably when you are allowed to edit again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Explain one thing I've done wrong

Decline reason:

You were edit warring at Sportsbook.com. Valid and reasonable block. — MBisanz ^talk 07:35, 10 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So it's fine for all of my edits to be be repeatedly removed for no valid reason, but when I change them back I'm in the wrong?

Decline reason:

Two things: given that you are the one who initiated the change, you and not the other editors, are under the burden of defending the changes. There is a reasonable objection to your edits as clear violation of several Wikipedia policies. Secondly, given that above you pledge to dodge this block by editing under various IP addresses, I don't see much desire on your part to abide by Wikipedia's policies... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 10 May 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.

Fade, write it separately (see what I did) not in the box itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fadeintoyou for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your fairly obvious attempts to abuse multiple accounts, I have extended the original block time. If you persist in being disruptive to Wikipedia, you will be blocked indefinately. Consider this your final chance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop emailing me with updates of when other people edit the article. There is a large difference between editing to add a source from the State of NJ and what you would like added. Since this page has been protected, and I will now be ignoring your emails (insults, vulgarity, and claiming I only care about "promoting corporations intent on defrauding innocent customers" are not the way to get what you want), your only option (other than just waiting it out) to email unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org if you wish to further dispute the blocks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Sp0rtsb00k.c0m 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. Thanks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Warning

I see you have a history of disruptive editing. Do not continue to make edits like the one you did today or you will face a much longer block than 24 hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooo, I love it when you talk dirty to me. Fadeintoyou (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]