User talk:184.148.109.121

Muzzin

Please stop deleting Muzzin as a Maple Leafs' alternate captain. He's still one of the A's, according the Leafs official website. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I watched the home opener and when they called the players, Muzzin wasn't called an alternate captain. Also he wasn't the last few players to come out as they call the captain and alternate captains last. 184.148.109.121 (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few games or wait until the Leafs' website makes changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems this happened a year ago (Oct 2021), where you & other IPs (this time 65.95.5.123) kept deleting Muzzin as an alternate for the Leafs & at times added Nelson as an alternate for the Islanders. The latter situation created confusion/tension between myself & @Sabbatino:. Once & for all - Jake Muzzin is an alternate captain with the Leafs. While Nelson only 'fills in' as an alternate captain, when either Capt Anders Lee or alternates Bailey or Clutterbuck are injured. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine with Muzzin, just telling you what I watched. However, same case I watched the home opener for the Islanders and they called Brock Nelson an alternate captain. I'm sure if he was just filling in the role if one of those guys mentioned isn't playing, I'm sure the announcer would have just said his name but he announced alternate captain. Therefore Nelson is an alternate captain. 184.148.109.121 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the Islanders, Clutterbuck is injured & out of the lineup (for the moment), thus the reason Nelson was wearing an 'A'. But, I'll leave that debate to continue, between Sabbatino & yourself. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not gonna stop re-adding Nelson, until you get blocked, right? GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson

I don't care anymore what you do, concerning Brock Nelson. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your recent editing history at Brock Nelson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aloha27 talk 23:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moka Mo per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo. 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. 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 ~~~~}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please explain to me how I'm a sockpuppet to this user. I haven't done any edits for about a week. 184.148.109.121 (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, please explain to me how I'm a sockpuppet to this user. I haven't done any edits for about a week. 184.148.109.121 (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You edited the same topic area two days after that user's last sock account was blocked. 331dot (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there, can you please show me exactly what edits you're referring to? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've never knew the the sock account and I feel it's wrong to block someone without a FULL explanation to the matter. 184.148.109.121 (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the block and does not address the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo/Archive. Yamla (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2022 (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.

December 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months 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. 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 ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I only talked to one person this week and it wasn't even mean and they didn't even responded back. I was also talking in a way that was polite. I just gave my suggestions/thoughts on a page that can't be edited and this is the treatment I get. I'm very upset with you guys blocking me for no good reason. I was just giving my thoughts on a page that I thought needed to be corrected. Next time, you should really READ and see exactly what the conversation was and if it was really abusive and show proof of anything you found that deemed a block instead of just telling me. This is very unprofessional! 184.148.109.121 (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, luckily, we're not professionals here. We're volunteers who defend Wikipedia's integrity as a hobby. The mere fact that you, a banned user, are evading your block by not logging in is, in itself, abusive. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:50, 22 December 2022 (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.

184.148.109.121 (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.