User talk:Royer2356

Welcome!

Hello, Royer2356, 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 talk 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! —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to HMHS Britannic, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James Brindley. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —DoRD (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...on second thought...

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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. —DoRD (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information you may find useful

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).

Royer2356 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

As stated, not an unblock request. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:35, 10 July 2016 (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.

Note: This is not an unblock request, but rather some information you might find useful.

I must say that it's very easy to evade blocks on this site and very easy to create accounts which can't be linked back to mine. Multiple Long-term abuse cases have been opened against this account since I first came on this site 4 years ago. This includes Supreme Genghis Khan. Many other socks of mine exist, some of which aren't even blocked yet. I've also tried to contribute constructively, but even then I got blocked as for example this account. Right, I've had enough of this site. It's utterly pointless trying to vandalize Wikipedia and it's just boring bullshit now. Goodbye, feel free to ban me and revoke my talk page access. I couldn't care less. Royer2356 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 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/Royer2356, 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.

-- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:55, 10 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/Royer2356, 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.

~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of my sockpuppets

(Of which I'm willing to disclose anyway)

List of Royer2356 Sockpuppets:

Autoblock affecting your IP address- UB (Not blocked)
Doctor Knaw (Non existent - watch for it)
Floating in Tittes and Asses (Non existent)
Mixtrut2- UB (Not blocked)
Mixtrut234- UB (Not blocked) - I presume at this point that UB stands for unblocked.
Oshwah (alt) - Not blocked, but, I presume a false report.
SpockLoad (Non existent)

Among others which I can't remember or lost track of.Royer2356 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-instated this comment. I am aware that many/most/all of these have already been blocked. The reason for re-instating is that I'll blitz through each of these and make sure that they are indeed all blocked. I'll strike them off as I go along. ~~Give me about thirty minutes? (There's about a hundred here) will comment here afterwards. Thanks for your patience.~~ Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I know you handle SPI's, these are supposed socks of Royer2356 which he has admitted to owning. They either don't exist or have not yet been blocked. Action required? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Not in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]