Jump to content

User talk:Coolvanillaboy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Verdict as established by the user's edits, and has been blocked indefinitely.
See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log
Hello Coolvanillaboy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 name 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! Cometstyles 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

==Sockpuppetry case==

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Verdict for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. SteveLamacq43 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Overheadsuplex.gif[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Overheadsuplex.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

please dont change how the references are listed on the Brock Lesnar page.. the references are listed like that so they are upto date with correct formatting. --- Paulley 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through your edits there is some good stuff there.. but most of it isint helpful to the article... i readded the Amature titles section to fit with formatting and i readded the In wrestling section which you completely removed for some unknown reason.. and yet revert it and delete section and replece others with badly formatted info... your edits in the career section are not to bad.. some removal of info isnt needed and the changes to the sub titles doesnt help but the other stuff was ok.. but yet when you edit you decide to remove the reference section change the picture for no good reason and removes sections WHY??? -- Paulley
Hold on two minutes im gonna see if i can merge the two version and add your good edits -- Paulley
Ok here we go this is what i have done my edits have incorperated your edits in the career section and i have placed the NFL quote in a quote template aswell as moved the PS2 info to the trivia section.. the "In wrestling" must remain due to it relevance to his wrestling career (even dead wrestler still have them).. as for the picture thats debatable so you may want to start a discussion on the talk page and get people to vote and see... anyway i hope you like this version and just remeber to think about your edits and try not to convert standard formatting to often.. happy editing -- Paulley
I said start a discussion on his talk page.. not just go and remove the sections.. anyway i just slightly modified your changes to the in wrestling (before you removed it) -- Paulley

Ok but the page is better of a little shorter and it looks better without the in wrestling and trivia and the references where just fine as it was the page looks good then trust me, the page dosent need to be so advanced. -- Coolvanillaboy

Umm try bring that up with any adimin on Wikipedia.. are you trying to tell me you dont want references there because it makes the page a bit longer.... ok now that just silly... citing sources and referencing is essential dont remove them again -- Paulley

No thats not what im saying i still have them just scroll down they are the same as i added a time ago, it was me who started the trivia and put in the bio profile and mma references and the amateur accomplishment and nfl telling and the other stuff just so you know but im talking about the in wrestling and trivia the page is better of without that, if you just let the page be as it is its a perfect page of brock lesnar its just for reading it looks good that way trust me to advanced pages dont look that good also -- Coolvanillaboy

Im sorry you can just do that... you are removing sources and references from the parts of the page they link to... references are placed in the source textlike that for a reason leave them BE!.. i wont ask again -- Paulley
If you have an oppinion on sourcing add it at the WP:PW talk page and it will be discussed air your view but do not change the page -- Paulley
Please dont do that again... i dont care if you think it looks better or not because that isnt the point... references are added the way they are and it is not in the articles, or wiki's best intrests to change it.
if you have an oppinion on it bring it up with the project (WP:PW), but DO NOT REVERT the page.. i am the only person on here to give you a chance dont mess it up --- Paulley
Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Brock Lesnar. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Sasquatch t|c 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one editing other peoples edit its other people who edit my edits belive me i have done almost the whole page of that even a time ago but know people edit what i want to change from my edits thats not to fair. -- Coolvanillaboy

You were blocked for removing large sections of text and removing in text references.. please also read WP:OWN -- Paulley

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Brock Lesnar, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Brocklesnar 2003 house show.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brocklesnar 2003 house show.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ BigrTex 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following images meet the same requirements and have also been tagged:

~ BigrTex 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed several user warnings from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you. MKoltnow 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well they are still annoying -- Coolvanillaboy

Refrences and removal of sections[edit]

DO NO REMOVE IN TEXT REFERENCES AND LARGE SECTIONS OF TEXT... references are a large part of wikipedia articles there is no reason to remove them from the text like that. As for the sections, though that is your oppinion the removal of large sections like that cannot just be performed like that without some sort of lengthy disscussion --- Paulley 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What!!!!! why make a large edit that removes them if you dont mind them being there... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Your removing sections for no reason, your removing perfectly usable free use images.. its vandalism and i wont let you do it --- Paulley

Do you even look at your edit[edit]

Do you even look at your edit... this is your edit tell me what part is helpful to the article --- Paulley 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your edit that's all im asking.. its got nothing to do with what you know about him as your not adding anything!!! --- Paulley

I look at my damn edits everytime dude tell me what the fuck is wrong (nothing is) so fuck off dammit! -- Coolvanillaboy

ok then...

the removal of sources
the removal of sections of text
the removal of the inter language wiki link
The removal of a free use image
and thats all you have done... what part of that is good -- Paulley

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by vandalism and incivility (24-hr block). 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. El_C 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

Vandlism[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked.

I havent vandalised anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvanillaboy (talk • contribs)

Yes you have see this You are removing refences & large parts of text with no edit summary or reason. DXRAW 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent deleted any information about brock lesnar infact i wrote most of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvanillaboy (talk • contribs)

You have deleted refences and writing most of it does not allow you to delete most of it. As it says at the bottom of the page "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." DXRAW 01:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dude you dont know what you are talking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvanillaboy (talk • contribs)

In a nutshell, STOP reverting the page. DXRAW 01:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you want me to stop editing huh? well i got news for ya it aint gonna happen so back off.

Fair Use[edit]

Final Warning
Stop reinserting images which have been removed because of legal and fair use concerns. Your actions can be seen as vandalism. If you do the same thing again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

-- bulletproof 3:16 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Warnings[edit]

You have removed several user warnings from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing warnings. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more removal of warnings or edits such as this and you will be blocked indefinitely. Please stop. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stalking you. I am an admin trying to be as instructive as I can be. Wikipedia is not a message board. Posts like the one I referenced above are not ok here. So please stop or you will be blocked. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours[edit]

For constant incivility and policy violations. I was originally going to make the block indefinite but you do have some constructive edits. You just need to learn how to interact with others on here. This is probably your last chance to shape up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been extended to indefinite. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:36, 26 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Just give me one more chance if i screw up this ip address will never have anything to do with pedia again i regret my foolish behavior and stupid vandalises i understand if you rather don´t want to deal with me ever again but i screw up i will never be back here ever again and this ip address will never have a new account i am a good editor really i even got credit from a user paulley but the thing that got me blocked in the first place was that, there are two types of references and i was deleting the other type not really reallising it so when i got approached i didnt really get what was wrong so i started being a jackass to other users now i see what i did wrong and how i was but im just asking for another chance to refresh things and nothing like this will ever happen ever again no article will be harmed on my part i promise one last chance is all i ask no more creating another account bad behavior vandalises nothing more of that just a last chance please i have learned my lesson i see what happends know and i want to improve and im going to if i get a last chance there wont be any more problem ever again

Decline reason:

Continued abusive behaviour including numerous abusive sockpuppets. If you can show you intend to follow Wikipedia policy by not editing anything for three months, we may reconsider unblocking you at that time. Please note that only your parent account is eligible for unblocking. Any further abuse (that is, any edits at all) will be proof that you have no intention of contributing productively to the Wikipedia. -- Yamla 16:32, 2 February 2007 (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.

That seems fair but can´t we make it a month instead of three?


We have pretty solid proof that you are both Martin181 and Rockaway360 and that you've been doing what amounts to a sockpuppet relay race the last few weeks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this time to also proof that i am indeed going to improve stop doing accounts etc i am admitting i was those users but im not going that way any longer im going to have this account and be a good member to wikipedia thats why i ask for a last chance i wont dissapoint either if i screw up again which i dont this ip address from sweden will never bother wikipedia again i promise. Coolvanillaboy 07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three months is already a compromise. More usual would be one year. --Yamla 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to continued unblock requests, it would now be inappropriate to unblock this user until at least a year has passed. --Yamla 19:19, 5 February 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I´ve waited long enough and I´ve learned a lesson.

Decline reason:

Last time I checked, banned users like you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. And you are banned indefinitely. — 210physicq (c) 00:23, 4 May 2007 (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.

Yamla is cruel and disruptive and should not be given as he wants.

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).

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

Request reason:

Give me another chance. It´s not like you all are god or anything. An admin is just a normal little dude so why should you guys stop me beacuse your on the net? Just give me another chacen, if I screw up then fine! I just got a wrong start

Decline reason:

You are banned. See WP:BAN. A ban is not eligible for unblocking through a standard unblock review. Your continued abusive sockpuppeteering shows that it would be inappropriate to unblock you even if this was permitted. — Yamla 16:13, 4 May 2007 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolvanillaboy&oldid=1142941682"