This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Chris19910 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Boeing 777 images[edit]

Thanks for the warning in User talk:58.27.165.238. I don't think I'd call it vandalism, but it's disruptive and pushing an agenda (close enough though). Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Destinations[edit]

May 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Aeroflot. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ILoveFran (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing any Disruptiv editing. The Wikipedia page on Aeroflot is completely out of date. It took me 4 hours to create it, checking also aircrafts and other stuff. Many destinations on your list such as JED or LAD are terminated. Many domestic destinations weren't even mentioned. Please, YOU are doing vandalism. As the wikipedia Aeroflot page was going to be too long, i was going to creat a link to Aeroflot Destinations to see this chart. This format is already used on other airlines and is a good one. If not, that chart is bad planned. Change it to the regular format.

My Page[edit]

Thanks for the help. I had another account, but I lost the password and didn't have an email set. The old account was User:Kivar. I'll just wait a few more days then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivar2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. And I usually TRY to remember to sign my name. I just forget sometimes... Kivar2 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about misuse of Twinkle[edit]

You tagged a userpage for deletion as vandalism, for no apparent reason. Then you tagged a new article for deletion as an attack page, when it clearly isn't. Please be more careful with your use of Twinkle, and your edits in general. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP check that out for the attack page about the racing driver. A few things wrong with that article it has no links or references and also it has no real meaning to be there without the refeence. It had already been tagged for speedy deletion anyway. ILoveFran (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those things make it an attack page. If you don't understand the guidelines (see WP:CSD), please don't use add templates to articles. If something is tagged for speedy delete, an admin will look at it, so adding another tag is generally not helpful. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Twinkle_abuse_by_User:ILoveFran. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about use of Twinkle[edit]

Regarding the ANI report that DC filed, I'd like to just discuss some things here first.

Carbuncle pointed out a few problematic edits. Let me take them one by one and we can talk about what's wrong with them.

tagging an unreferenced article as an attack page Maybe the template you wanted was {{db-bio}}? This is clearly not an attack page. It doesn't have any references, true, but I don't see any inappropriate allegations. Please be careful when nominating articles for speedy deletion that you have specified the correct Criteria.
tagging someone's user page as vandalism only Well, that user page is ugly as hell, I'll grant you that! ha ha ha... But it is that user's own page, so how is that vandalism? I also note it is that user's only edit. They may have been using their user page like a sandbox in order to understand how to do formatting using the MediaWiki software. In any case, unless it's offensive, a user pretty much has a right to do whatever they want in their userpage. Which brings us to...
reverting a whole bunch of edits on another user page What was your intention here? Now, I don't get this user page... it appears to be a copy-and-paste of another article, but vandalized. I'm not sure what the user is trying to do... but in any case, reverting the edits doesn't make any sense to me. Care to explain what your thinking was here?

Anyway, you need to take great care with Twinkle, as tools like that are privilege, not a right. I think you are trying to do the right thing, but some of your edits using Twinkle have been a little disruptive. Let's try and figure this out, shall we? Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adopt offer[edit]

i see you want to be adopted so i came here to adopt you is that ok you want me to adopt you just leave a message here or on my talkpage okOo7565 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) {{adoptoffer|oo7565}}[reply]

Would you care to explain this edit?[edit]

ILF, thank you for acknowledging my concerns, but you barely started using Twinkle again and you have already taken another inappropriate action. You warned user DonnyBob for removing a CSD template from a page he created, but that is false. He did no such thing. He has engaged user Bradv in a discussion over whether the article should be deleted or not, but DonnyBob has not violated any policies.

Please tell me how this error occurred. I understand you may be confused, but it is getting more and more difficult to assume good faith. If you are having this much trouble with the tools, I would suggest you stop using them and get more experience editing Wikipedia by hand first.

I am sorry to do this, but any further abuse of Twinkle or other Wikipedia tools could result in a block. Thank you for your understanding. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you were offended, but you still have not explained how you made so many mistakes with Twinkle in such a short period of time. In lieu of any other explanation, I am forced to assume that you are either a) doing it on purpose, or b) having some serious, serious troubles figuring out these tools. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request[edit]

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/May 2008#ILoveFran. RFRBot (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning[edit]

ILF, this is your final warning about inappropriate reverting and inappropriate warnings.

First of all, it is not appropriate to restore warnings to Talk pages, except in very specific circumstances. Therefore this edit was inappropriate. Please see WP:DRC. This is a common mistake, but I find it particularly aggravating since you have already been warned about reverting people in their own user space.

Worse yet, the warning you issued is entirely incorrect, and demonstrates to me that you are still not taking the time to understand the buttons you are clicking on in Twinkle. The warning tells the person not to edit other people's user pages. Not only was it a User Talk page, and not a User page, but it was that User's own User Talk page. The warning just makes no sense.

I am going to ask that your privileges to use Twinkle be revoked. If you continue to create disruption on the encyclopedia, whether intentionally or by accident, you will be blocked. Thank you, and please be more careful. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so tied up with your lawsuit, that you cannot make appropriate edits on Wikipedia, then stop making edits on Wikipedia. This is not complicated.

As far as your observation that I "lack authority," well, ha ha ha, if you think that is going to stop you from getting blocked if you continue to be disruptive, you just try that, my friend. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accountcreator[edit]

Yes, I suspended your account (that's the function we use, for lack of a better status, for accounts that we have declined to approve). I decided not to approve you for use of the tool at this time, as you have been here about six days now, and, the account tool requires that we trust the user with sensitive, private data. Unfortunately, 60 edits (at the time), and, a few days here isn't much time for us to get to know you. It's nothing personal, and, I'd be happy to revisit that decision in a couple months, if you are still interested. Sorry, SQL ^{Query me!} 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruptive editing via misuse of automated tools. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. nancy ^(talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a checkuser-block - Alison ^❤ 20:45, 29 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Bearing in mind I am a Lawyer and the fact that I have been blocked under the terms which arent in fact very legal at all. I point you in the direction of the legal terms which are extreamly poorly written and your lawyer should know this. Unless he isnt very good. This block is not stated anywhere in the policy and is therefore not legal. Unblock me before I decide to go and jump off a bridge. I was editing in perfectly a normal way and you stopped that.

Decline reason:

As a lawyer, you already know that, since this is a private web site, we can block you for any reason at all, including a random user-blocking lottery. Certainly you can be blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia, especially as your request doesn't include any indication that you'd edit differently if unblocked.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes well I believe that I can improve and considering wikipedia does have a policy which says problem users should be given another chance I belive that I should be given that. If you dont then I dont think that the piece of text should be on the site if you are not willing to fulfill it.

Decline reason:

You've had more than a second chance. You've created a boatload of sockpuppets. If any of them behaved constructively, they'd probably be fine, but you've never shown any interest in constructive editing with any of your accounts. We often give second chances, but 23rd chances are harder to come by. — MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 30 May 2008 (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.

:As I read your talk page, it looks like you've been given quite a few chances already. You're indefinitely blocked because you've consistently refused to either use automated tools appropriately or stop using them, and so blocking is the only way to stop you from further disruption. This request doesn't give any hint of what you would do to prevent further disruptions, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've been given way too many chances, I don't think your presence would be an asset for the encyclopedia. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:21, 30 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thats ok you may have indef blocked this account but as a serial programmer I can create 100 accounts randomly anyway with the programme that I have got all of which will be coded so that they will cause max disruption and you can keep indef blocking my accounts but I know that after 24 hours I will have a new IP address and nothing you can do about it. So good luck in blocking all accounts. They have started editing now...

Decline reason:

per reasons stated above. I am also protecting this talk page against further disruptive unblock requests. nancy ^(talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (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.

What's the point? It isn't that much fun for you, and it isn't that hard for us to keep reverting and blocking them. Why not do something more useful with your time? Read a book, write a useful program, learn to knit, take a walk in the sunshine? Life is short and beautiful; do you really want to waste yours trolling Wikipedia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]