User talk:Can You Prove That You're Human

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Can You Prove That You're Human! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

98.248.59.58's Talk Page[edit]

Hi, please see my talk page, thx. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome[edit]

Hi Tbhotch. You may have noticed that I placed a warning on 122.3.179.209's talk page after you reverted 122.3.179.209's edit on Severe acute respiratory syndrome. I just realized that I intended to place a warning on 166.217.203.75's talk page, but instead, I placed it on 122.3.179.209's talk page! Sorry about that! --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. IP 122.3.179.209 also was vandalizing (here and here. Don't worry. TbhotchTalk C. 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hello! Per your request, I've granted you rollback rights. You should have a read of Help:Reverting and WP:RBK and you can test it out at WP:New admin school/Rollback. Just remember that's it only for blatant vandalism and it doesn't give you any special status. If you have any questions, just ask! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:112.203.254.70[edit]

Re. User talk:112.203.254.70

Please note, removal of warnings etc. from a users own talk page is not against any policy (unless the editor is subject to editing restrictions). Editors may remove warnings from their own talk pages. It is not acceptable to revert such changes and to warn the user.

Please see WP:OWNTALK.

You could ask the user to please not remove warnings, and otherwise speak to them.

However, it is important to realise - it is not an acceptable use of rollback to reinstate warnings on user talk pages, as you did here and here.

If the user has removed the warning, you may assume that they have read it. If they continue disruptive editing, they may be blocked, and the previous warnings will be taken into account, even if they have removed them.

Please (re-)read Wikipedia:Rollback feature, paying particular attention to this part;

When not to use rollback[edit]

If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert. Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator. Because administrators have rollback automatically, it cannot be removed without removing their administrator privileges.

If you have any questions about it, please ask - either on my talk, with a {{helpme}}, or talk to us live, with this or this.

Thanks for your attention; I hope you understand. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to read WP:OWNTALK, as well as re-read Wikipedia:Rollback feature. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply  Chzz  ►  18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Regarding the page blanking warning - huh? I'm over in Huggle reverting the IP address that's blanking. I'm bringing it back. Please rescind your warning. It's not me. Thank you. --Manway (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on your Talk Page before this message (see your Talk Page). Sorry about the error I made. I clicked on the wrong link. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks. --Manway (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Can You Prove That You're Human. You have new messages at Manway's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Electronic body music[edit]

Same thing here. The user that keeps section blanking Electronic body music is a user that's been banned many times over. I'm restoring the section per AfD consensus. The page has been protected before, and he simply continues blanking it when the protection expires. What do you suggest? DarkProdigy (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurepop. I understand that a decision was made regarding the issue; however, constant reverting is not the solution, because the other user will constantly revert as well. Read Handling of edit warring behaviors. I recommend submitting a report here: Edit war/3RR noticeboard. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Can you... apols for busting in on your talk with this, but I wanted to reply within the thread)
89.244.71.74 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours. However, DarkProdigy, your reversion wasn't the right way to do things. I understand what you intended, but it takes two people to edit-war. What you should do in such a situation is;
  • Stop. Have a cup of tea or something.
  • Don't worry about the wrong version being there for a bit - no deadline, it doesn't matter
  • Warn the user about 3RR, vandalism, not being civil, whatever is appropriate - level 1,2,3 etc.
  • If they've had a final warning and keep at it, post on WP:AIV and ask for them to be blocked
  • If there are several editors involved, request page protection
If in doubt, ask for help - with a {{helpme}} on your own talk page, or live, with this.
Remember the tea part. It's important. See WP:NAM. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.I.E.L.D.[edit]

Hey there. I was removing that section per consensus at the WikiProject Comics talk page. I did use an edit summary, but I should have made my reasoning more clear; sorry. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did notice the edit summary, but the reason for the edit wasn't clear. It's okay; it's also in your interest to provide an explanation the edit summary, so that you reduce your chances of being accused for vandalism when you're actually making a constructive edit. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - I guess I was using shorthand that WPC members would recognize, but no one else would. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, LOL, I just noticed that we were talking about two different edits.  :) In this one, it's clear to me that "is similar to SHIELD" part is speculation, and unsourced original research, which is why I removed it. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to the edit you just posted. lol It's okay. I was going to say that you did use the edit summary, but it only said rvt. lol and then you said that you used shorthand that only WPC members would recognize. I was going to reply that I do understand what rvt means! Thanks for clarifying. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughtful generic template[edit]

Hi. Thanks for leaving a thoughtful generic template on my talk page; it tells me a lot about where you're coming from. Some questions: 1) Who are you? 2) What accounts have you used in the past? 3) Weirdly, you are wildly off base in your bogus generic warning. I would ask you to email me for further clarification, but... this is a brand new account which means, likely, 1) you are a sockpuppet of some other user or 2) you don't really know what goes on here. Thanks for your concern, but it is not helpful here. IronDuke 02:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attack me. I do not appreciate the tone of your statements. Your interrogation is unwarranted and your accusations are without any grounds. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. You have made things quite a bit clearer. IronDuke 02:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Correction - 3RR Violation[edit]

IronDuke is restoring BLP violating material not sourced to valid live sources. This is not subject to 3RR. Clown Correction (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be on line, and what constitutes an exemption from 3RR under WP:BLP is quite subjective. Proceed at your own risk. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:BrendanFrye[edit]

Look again. I removed a personal attack. Now please remove the warning from my page, and mention in the edit summary that it was a mistake. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I clicked on the wrong tab when I issued the warning. Thanks for letting me know. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I found that your account was created to evade after a one-week block imposed on Go leafs go 3000 (talk · contribs). I have therefore indefinitely blocked this account and renewed to block on Go leafs go for 10 days. Please do not evade this block. Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue to use User:Go leafs go 3000. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 22 May 2010 (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).

Can You Prove That You're Human (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. I don't understand why I have been blocked. This is my only account. I can't use Go leafs go 3000 if it is not my account. Furthermore, I read WP:SIGNS and it stated, "Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies, shall face no action, and no attempts shall be made to determine if such accounts are linked. But the use of additional accounts for some disruptive or otherwise deceptive purpose is a violation of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy." I would like to know what have I done that is disruptive or deceptive. The only purpose of my account is to revert vandalism as you can see through my contributions. I have not used my account to be disruptive at all. I have never edit warred, vandalized, or deleted discussions. In addition, I have not inappropriately used my account in any manner. I do not understand why I have been blocked, after working so hard to be an active citizen on Wikipedia and do my part to revert vandalism. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you're saying that this is absolutely your only account and that you've never had any others, but if you did, it would be okay? Sorry, could you focus your objections a little? A checkuser has verified that this is indeed an alternate account of someone with a history of problems; in this case an alternate account is a poor idea. I agree with Luke; please use your primary account only. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2010 (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).

Can You Prove That You're Human (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am indeed stating that this is my only account. I am not stating that "if [I] did, it would be okay," because I never introduced the idea that I had another account. Since I have been accused of having another account, I am using the reasons from WP:SIGNS to indicate that I cannot be blocked for sockpuppetry if I have not committed sockpuppetry. "Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies, shall face no action, and no attempts shall be made to determine if such accounts are linked." I have not violated any policies, and therefore, should not face any action and no attempts, such as Checkuser, should be made to determine if my account is linked when another account. According to WP:SOCK, "Alternate accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy." I am stating that I have no association with go leafs go 3000, but even if you would prefer to assume that I do, I have not used this account to violate the above stated policies. A sockpuppet account is used to deceive; for example, falsifying additional support in an edit war. I have never done this, and therefore, I am requesting to be unblocked, because I have not beeing "abusing multiple accounts" as my block indicates. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser results are unambiguous; this account and the other two are either the same person or more than one perosn acting in concert; at any rate, they are undistinguishable from each other. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:48, 23 May 2010 (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.

WP:SIGNS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Q T C 00:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but WP:SOCK, a policy, forms the majority of my statement, as I have not inappropriately used an apparent alternate account. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, which seems to be a state you're actively trying to avoid, you have not not used any other accounts and have certainly not used the accounts mentioned above? Kuru (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if it has seemed like I'm trying to avoid that statement, because that is certainly not my intention, particularly after writing, "I am indeed stating that this is my only account." I have not used any other accounts before. Perhaps the other account that you are linking to mine is one of my roomate's, but I am confused by that, because I did not know that any of them used Wikipedia. That could be a possibility, because I don't think they know that I use Wikipedia, either. Even if it is, I don't understand why I am linked with that account, because I looked at the contributions of the other account and they are not similar to mine.
My apologies; it sounded like you were skirting the primary issue of your block with a "this is my only account since it is the one I am using now". Thank you for the clarification; since your contention is the accuracy of the checkuser, it is up to one of them to reply, which it looks like is in progress. Kuru (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just left a note with Deskana, who made the original match. It looked like a solid match to me, but perhaps that user or another checkuser can verify. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke is correct. The evidence is conclusive. --Deskana (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Can_You_Prove_That_You%27re_Human&oldid=1080922307"