User talk:75.33.246.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of TyrusThomas4lyf.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

[edit] Vandalism warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Subdolous (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. -- KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I was blocked for no reason. I simply added facts and removed POV statements, however User:Jeff G. persisted on reverting my edits. Despite warnings, his disruptive reversions continued."

Decline reason: "You are blocked for being an "Apparent sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf", which appears plausible, and which your request does not address. — Sandstein (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

How can I possibly address the "apparent blah blah blah" when I don't know what it pertains to? If I have no knowledge of the chrarges I'm being accused of, I can't bring anything forth in particular to disprove them. This is ludicrous.--75.33.246.194 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "How can I possibly address the "apparent blah blah blah" when I don't know what it pertains to? If I have no knowledge of the chrarges I'm being accused of, I can't bring anything forth in particular to disprove them. This is ludicrous.--75.33.246.194 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The evidence appears to be quite clear. Denied. — IrishGuy talk 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

"Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (7th) for evidence" above.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not evidence of anything. That's purely circumstantial or coincidental evidence. I notice that you like to go around and revert lots of people's edits, without any justification. I'm being penalized for knowing basketball history and adding facts, only to have you go around like a dickhead and delete all of them.--75.33.246.194 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may butt in, some of his edits, like this one, are justifiable. (In that case, he was simply removing names already mentioned in preceding lists.) Zagalejo^^^ 09:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, please be civil. I declined a reblock at the moment, but such language as the one you used above doesn't help your cause. If you do it again, I (or another admin) will definitely block you. Meanwhile, I've asked for admins more familiar with the NBA to review your edits. --Nlu (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review of your actions, I am blocking you for one week. Upon the block's termination in a week, I advise you to steer off NBA-related articles altogether for a while until you can cool down and realize that your behavior is not acceptable. It is clear that you can contribute positively if you want to. If you do so without engaging in edit-warring or name-calling (or, in the case of the above denial of sockpuppetry, telling untruths), you will be welcomed back to the Wikipedia community, but respect has to be earned, not demanded or backdoored. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)