Archives

Hello.

If you would like to leave me a message. Please be kind, use common sense, no SPAM, and no harassment.

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this before resuming vandalism patrol (bringing back from archive)

What is with this AIV report (and the warning you gave them on their user page)? They've done nothing except leave an AGF userbox on their user page.

I'm concerned that you do not have enough experience to be making GA nominations and patrolling for vandalism. This is not you first problem; I see a lot of issues above here. I think we need to iron this out first, and there needs to be some agreement on your part to be more careful, before you resume this kind of work. Warning a new editor like that is a good way to lose a potential future contributor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me affirm that I have been waiting for some response to my section above as bad speedy tags is an issue for someone doing vandalism patrol for many of the same reasons Floq stated. I would like to echo the part where they state that we should iron these out. I see no reason to think you are not a contributor in good faith now and so just as we don't want to drive out potential contributors we don't want to drive you out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barkeep49 that we don't want to drive you out, but I also feel that this is important enough that it cannot be ignored or archived without reply. Please do not edit anything after your block expires until we have had a chance to discuss the report at AIV and the bad speedy tags. If you resume editing before this is resolved, I will block you indefinitely until you do start discussing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Dino245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #27532 was submitted on Nov 08, 2019 20:53:45. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2019 (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).

Dino245 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The INDEFINITE block due to "illegit sock puppetery" happened a few days after I registered User:Dinan8 as an alternative account, not an illegitimate sock puppet. Sure I did use multiple accounts, but not in a "abusive" way, according to WP:SOCK. See the UTRS ticket above for details. Please also ping User:Begoon, User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Eagles247, User:Bbb23, User:Barkeep49 and User:Floquenbeam. Thank you very much and assume good faith to the admin that reviews this request.

Decline reason:

Ignoring the other half-dozen sockpuppets you created, Dinan8 was created 19 minutes after you were blocked for disruptive editing. That's not a legitimate alternate account. At this point I would suggest following the steps listed at WP:SO. – bradv🍁 03:00, 9 November 2019 (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.

Not everyone has access to UTRS. You'll need to provider an explanation here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Can you please paste my explanation form the UnBlock ticket I submitted today? I accidentally lost access to it an I don't want to write down an explanation all over again. Dino245 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only substance to your UTRS request was "This happened a few days after I registered User:Dinan8 as an alternative account, not an illegitimate sock puppet. Sure I did use multiple accounts, but not in a "abusive" way, according to WP:SOCK." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, allow me to retort: You created this account very shortly after this one was blocked for 31 hours (might even be some overlap), then you vandalized with this one, and this one. Oh, and this totally legit alternate account as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dino245 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That's how you explain your sockpuppet edits, like this gem? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, you do not get to alter or remove others' comments while you are blocked Do so again and you'll lose your talk page access. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: OK, can you please ping the users above so we can finally start discussing my unblock request? Thank you Dino245 (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that an additional voice is necessary or helpful here: I hope no one considers removing this block. Eric ^talk 02:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: Can you please explain why? The block was originally 3 days long, then it was made indefinite for "illegit sock puppetery" after I registered User:Dinan8 as an alternate account.

@Eric:, @Bradv:, @Bbb23:, @Eagles247:, @Barkeep49:, @Floquenbeam: and @Ohnoitsjamie:, if you guys don't unblock me, you will lose a good future contributor and vandal fighter take a look at [this] and [this]. Dino245 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your repetitive "protests" have become disruptive. I've revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Addison's disease

The article Addison's disease you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Addison's disease for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dino245 -- Dino245 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pomeranian (dog breed )" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pomeranian (dog breed ) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Pomeranian (dog breed ) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]