User talk:Toa Mario

This user is a sock puppet or a meatpuppet of InvaderSora, as confirmed by his/her edits, and has been blocked indefinitely.

See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

Welcome!

Hello, Toa Mario, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

--Richard 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Kariteh 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Super Mario Galaxy, is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dancter 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pocs

A tag has been placed on Pocs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Morenooso 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices, as you did with Pocs. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Morenooso 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey genius see the construction tag Toa Mario 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. Any article can be nominated for Speedy Delete. Please read wikilinked policy. Morenooso 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its being constructed so stopToa Mario 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a construction tag on it does not supercede the Speedy Delete tag. Morenooso 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what if im pressing "save" after a huge edit and ytou add it back? then tis a edit conflict and you waste my work!!!!!!!!! Toa Mario 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pocs. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. You can always re-add. Just as your save just knocked out this save. Please do not remove the tag again. Morenooso 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt revert pocs 3 timesToa Mario 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Do not remove the tag. You may still edit the article and add onto it. BUT, you should not remove the tag until admin review. , you will be blocked from editing. Morenooso 03:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no because its under constyruction and you adding it back is causing edit conflicts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Toa Mario 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) can you read? "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while.[reply]

As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history or has placed their signature above.

If this page has not been edited recently (several hours!), please remove this template (or replace it with {{underconstruction}}).

This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts; please remove it between editing sessions to allow others to improve this page."

CSD tag was placed prior to construction tag

Please understand, the CSD tag was placed prior. You may place any tag you wish, but it is now up to an admin to review the article based upon the CSD nomination. You are not permitted to remove CSD tags as per the original message and subsequent CSD message reminder. Morenooso 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its under damn constructionToa Mario 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wasting time worrying about the CSD tag. Just write the article on your PC or in your user space. For example, create a page titled User:Toa Mario/Pocs and work on it for as long as you need to. When you're ready, just move User:Toa Mario/Pocs to Pocs and the completed article will be in mainspace, i.e. it will be a real article. Don't waste time worrying whether the current Pocs article will be deleted or not. As long as it is not "salted" (i.e. protected from being re-created), you can always recreate the article when the completed article is "ready for prime time".

--Richard 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I do not believe this article does qualify for speedy: Although it contains little content, it does provide sufficient context to be a stub. That said, you are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags from articles you have created yourself, even if you think they shouldn't be there. I'm going to be nice and not block you, so don't do it again. Heimstern Läufer 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please act in a civil manner when disagreeing with others. Heimstern Läufer 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Collis Potter Huntington. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Three edits. Ronbo76 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collis Potter Huntington. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. In addition, watch your language in edit summaries. Ronbo76 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Collis Potter Huntington, you will be blocked from editing. Fourth edit/revert. Ronbo76 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youre the one vandalizing, stupid! HE WAS BORN ON APRIL 16. END OF STORY. THE HUNTINGTON FAMILY CONFIRMS THIS> THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE YOU CAN HAVE. Toa Mario 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for breaking the three-revert rule. 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.

feydey 15:00, 5 April 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).

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

Request reason:

It says it is an exception if you are rving vandalism.

Decline reason:

Which you weren't. You were changing one uncited birth date to another uncited birth date. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS so you can avoid this problem in the future. — Yamla 23:42, 5 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

yes i was. octuber 22 is incorrect.

Decline reason:

Please review WP:VAND -- the edits you were reverting are clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. Sorry. You're more than welcome to return and discuss your changes after the block expires. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:35, 6 April 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.

CP Huntington birth date

I did a quick search this morning for references listing the April 16 birth date; while I did find a couple, I found many more and more reliably sourced pages that listed October 22. I've added all the citations that I found today to the article. If you've got a reliable reference other than those listed, please list it here or, after the block expires, on the article talk page. As I mentioned there, I plan to take another look at the reference material in my own resource library later this week for further corroboration of either date. Slambo (Speak) 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) There is no source more reliable than the Huntington Family.Toa Mario 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an amateur genealogist myself, I've found that placing blind trust in family histories, even those written by members of the family, often leads to inaccuracies. Family legends can sometimes taint a researcher's output to the point where the document that is created as a result of the research is incorrect. While the date of the document from the Huntington Family Association presents a compelling argument for the earlier birth date, the website does not list the source documents that it used to determine the birth date. That site also mentions several updates to the 1915 document that are not displayed online, so we don't know if a member of that research team has found the birth date to be accurate or not. So far, the most convincing reference that I've seen is that listed on Diana's Genealogy Page because it shows an extensive list of references to the source documents that were used and transcriptions of US census records (yes, I know that the census records themselves can contain inaccuracies).

To avoid problems like this in the future, be sure to cite your sources when you add or change information in this manner. I've added citations to the article for all of the references I found and noted the discrepancies that were found among them. As more references are found for each piece of information, they should be cited so those in doubt can look up the information in the original source documents. Slambo (Speak) 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest reference that I added to the page mentions the source for a birth date of October 21 as the "Collis Huntington Memoir, Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley." Presumably, this memoir is one written by Collis Huntington himself, lending further credence to an October birth date. I am not in a position to visit the Bancroft Library, and I have asked on the article's talk page for someone local there to visit and verify the reference. Slambo (Speak) 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MileyCyrus Grani 9189326 400.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:MileyCyrus Grani 9189326 400.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Collis Potter Huntington, you will be blocked from editing. 2nd deletion. --Morenooso 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wtf? i added the RIGHT birthdateToa Mario 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collis Potter Huntington. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --Morenooso 18:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your stupid april 16 is the RIGHT bday and i didnt revbert so HAToa Mario 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintencats

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Nintencats, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Xnuala (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just because you dont like cats doesnt mean other people DONTToa Mario 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I actually am a big fan of cats, I have one in my family! However, I don't think Nintencats and Kittendo are necessary articles for Wikipedia until those games actually exist. But, I see you are creating an article on one of the other games, Purr Pals, which is great and I think you should focus your efforts there. Thanks!--Xnuala (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur ... and my previous companion feline allowed me to share her space for 19 years before she crossed the Rainbow Bridge. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Catz DS and Purr Pals BOTH exsit and are released. Toa Mario 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Why don't you work on those articles instead of creating articles on games that don't exist?--Xnuala (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aree for if anyone earches for them, they can get lead to one or both of those pages.Toa Mario 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Nintencats. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this edit violates our civility policy. this edit is another such, with an impolite edit summary. It also is only one of several time you removed a deletion tag from an article you created. This is not acceptable. Perhaps yopu did not know this, but any future actions of this sort will probably result in your being blocked form editing for a time. Please help us improve the project in accordance with the existing policy and practices here. DES ^(talk) 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collis Potter Huntington

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Collis Potter Huntington, you will be blocked from editing. Ronbo76 19:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not erase valid messages. In addition, I now see that you got a 3RR message earlier. Please cease your edits to that article. Ronbo76 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to stop putting REAL info into the Collis Huntington Article, so you can forget about it. Toa Mario 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of Attitude that can get you permanently blocked from editing. --68.239.79.97 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? by adding truew info into an article? This isnt uncyclopedia. Toa Mario 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collis Potter Huntington. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Reminder from previous editor above. Ronbo76 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Collis Potter Huntington, you will be blocked from editing. Ronbo76 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. you are adding lies into the collis hunbtingtiona rticle and im fixing it. Toa Mario 19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the evidence. Tricky Victoria 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are removing reliable source citations ... you have not provided any proof of your assertion that his birth date is incorrect ... do not change it again without provide a link to a source with the date you prefer. --68.239.79.97 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can onlyhave ONE birthday, for one. Two, The HUNTINGTON FAMILY says April 16. Nobody si more reliable for this, unless he was living. Toa Mario 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least five reverts today Tricky Victoria 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I EDITED it back, i didnt revert. Toa Mario 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing an articel back to its prior state, by whatever means, is a reversion for purposes of the 3RR. DES ^(talk) 21:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Collis Potter Huntington. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.. In this edit you removed significant amounts of content with a cited sourced, with an uncivil edit summary, and cired no Reliable source for your repalcement content. This is not acceptable behavior. You are on the thin edge of a block. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Wikipedia policy requires that editors act in a civil matter. This edit, in which you called other users "idiots," is in clear violation of that policy. In the future, please refrain from such behavior. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So ican't quesion their intelligence. That sucks. Toa Mario 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, calling someone else an idiot goes beyond the questioning of intelligence and is an out and out attack against something. Two, it's childish. Three, we are not here to (openly) question intelligence. You can think of somebody what you want whenever you want, but here, you cross lines when you decide to let it come out onto the keyboard. It's also a great way to get banned. Trust me, just don't go there. --Dennisthe2 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nonsense"

I'm not adding nonsense, I'm merely reverting your edits, which you are constantly reintroducing while compeletely opposed. Evilclown93 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. You reverted it backj to NONSENSE. April 16 is the only birthdate. Toa Mario 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please review the three-revert rule at the above link. You may not revert an article more than 3 times in one 24-hour period or you may be blocked from editing. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate 3RRToa Mario 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. You used 3 reverts. If you use a fourth, you may be blocked. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nintencats

I've nominated Nintencats, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Nintencats satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittendo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Nintencats during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you pointlessly nominated it?Toa Mario 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, maybe for the same reasons as Kittendo was nominated, since they are identical? — 68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the AfD page. But in general there is no reason to have an article, or even a dab page, for things that do not (yet) exist. This page is a duplicate of Kittendo (duplicate pages are also discouraged) and so i joined it to the AfD for Kittendo. DES ^(talk) 21:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued 3RR and incivility

You have violated the WP:3RR on at least two pages today. You continued to revert even after being warned, and showd in your edit summaries that you were aware of the 3RR. I have filed a report on this at the 3RR noticeboard.

You also violated WP:CIVIL multiple times on multiple pages.

Please indicate that you understand the 3RR, and WP:CIVIL, and that you will not violate the 3RR, and will at least attempt to be civil in future editing, or I will have no choice but to block you for a time. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ... you have managed to get yourself reported for WP:3RR by three different editors in less than two hours!

19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC) — Ronbo76
20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC) — Crotalus_horridus
21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC) — DESiegel

That must be some kind of record! --68.239.79.97 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

This user now appears to be using CoHun (talk · contribs) and ColHunt (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets, at least on the Collis Potter Huntington article, in an attempt to avoid being blocked for WP:3RR. --68.239.79.97 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof?Toa Mario 22:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "im sick and tired of these lies..." edit comment is what we call a smoking gun, plus your unimaginative use of abbreviations of his name. (BTW, I'm adding ColPotta (talk · contribs) to the list.) Oh, yeah, using one of them to blank the other user pages (to hide the sockpuppet tag) is also a dead giveaway. --68.239.79.97 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add ColHunt to the list too. Ronbo76 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go have an admin check IPs. Wait, why am i saying this? The IP will probably be 68.239.79.97.Toa Mario 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Repeated violations of WP:3RR; Creating an abusive sock puppet account in an attempt to continue reverts after beign warned about the 3RR; continued violations of civility after being warned.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

DES ^(talk) 23:01, 8 April 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).

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

Request reason:

What the fuck? I never made sockpuppets..

Decline reason:

Its obvious that you did create several sockpuppet accounts, including CoHun, ColHunt and ColPotta as mentioned above. Each one made exactly the same edit as you to the same article with the same edit summary as you. Further the timing of these sockpuppets makes it clear it is you. This is not a way for you continue t edit war on that article. Gwernol 23:28, 8 April 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.

Your unblock request has been denied. Stop replacing the unblock request. Threatening to disrupt Wikipedia further does very little to convince me you are here to make constructive contributions. If you continue to replace the unblock notice I will extend your block and protect this page to prevent you from editing it with yet more disruptive editing. Gwernol 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ignored my warning and continued to vandalise this page, your block has been extended to 1 week and this page has been protected to prevent further disruption by you. If you continue to create sockpuppets during the period of this block both they and this account will be subject to substantial blocks. Gwernol 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been reset due to continued use of abusive sockpuppets to evade your block [1]. Every time you do this the sockpuppet account will be indefinitely blocked and the 1 week block on this account will start over. Gwernol 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block reset to 2 weeks due to two more abusive sockpuppets used to evade block and vandalize. If this happens once more your account will be indefinitely blocked. Gwernol 23:12, 10 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I can assure you that those are NOT me. ANYBODY can take someone's edit summary during an "edit war" and "pretend" to be them. ANd that's not fair, because in that case, it gets the user in trouble for sockpuppetry. So alas, you have no proof. I used the "im sick and tired of these lies" edit summary ONCE, and then some little jerk decided it would be funny to take that, make abusive accounts, and revert reverts with that edit summary repeadetly.

EDIT: I also have to participate in a few AFD discussions.

Decline reason:

Confirmed abusive sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user. Thanks, you are done. — Yamla 19:26, 12 April 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.

Image tagging for Image:Purrpals2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Purrpals2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense..but are you B:LIND? It says "IGN.COM" on the image. pretty clear that its from IGN, so i saw no point in typing it down. Toa Mario 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Are you the user InvaderSora? You made a comment on my talk page, and claimed to be "The Irken Keyblade" (also using Invader Zim and Kingdom Hearts words, just like InvaderSora), and you were changing the image on Bionicle Heroes to same small pixely image that InvaderSora used. I think that's the smoking gun that shows you are him. --Rabin 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You have been blocked indefinitely, as you've had enough chances and warnings to cease your edit wars and incivility. When you're ready to participate in the project constructively and civilly, place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. In the meantime, if you'd like to contribute at some point in the future, read the following first: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:OWN, and WP:3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)" I misread the comment. Yes, i am IS, but when i read that, i misread. I aplogize... I would prefer keeping this account, if the staff doesn't mind. Toa Mario 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK

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).

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

Request reason:

I clearly said ia ccidentally misread the message. I am not being abusive. The COlHunt and whatever accounts are not me. I misread my InvaderSora account's talk page. I was ready to start again, but misread. I hereby apologize..again. And i did not make this one for the voting. For one, it's the admin's decision as i was told- Example is 62 people could say keep, 3 could say delete, and if an admin decided delete, it would be delete.

Decline reason:

What a bold request. You were previously indefinitely blocked, then created a new account, went on a spree of random violations, were blocked multiple times for using socks again, then you request an unblock for no particular reason? Goodness. Kuru ^talk 22:34, 12 April 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.

You are a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. You are not permitted to edit the Wikipedia either with this account, with your sockpuppeteer account (InvadorSora), or with any other account. You are blocked indefinitely and are not welcome to contribute to the Wikipedia. Your continued abuse of the unblock template has lead me to protect this page. Another admin will be along shortly to most likely deny this unblock as well. Please do not ever create any new accounts here. --Yamla 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]