User talk:Barrovian

Actually I have come back from retirement to fight for my account! CARROT ARMY AT THE READY!

Welcome

This is Barrovian's Talk Page.

June 2011

I have shortened the block to a month after it was determined that User:Willcool52 is not a sockpuppet. In the future, please do not "rat out" your fellow classmates to WP:RFPP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to state I currently only have one account I use on wikipedia, and I would never need another one. Secondly I want to make Wikipedia the best it can be, that's why I don't like people vandalising pages. I have made about 3 requests for page protection, 2 of which have been successful. Lasly, I think you must have blocked me accidently, as user:willcool52 is a totally different person, and he has asked me to edit his user page as he isn't really that good with technology, and I know how to insert userboxes etc. Thanks! Plus, 90% of my edits are true and sourceable.- I always try to upload the best infomation possible. And I don't do distruptive editing.

I'm not saying anything, but I noticed you banned me for "Sock Puppeting" or something, you realised I only have one account, and found another reason, which isn't true.
 Barrovian (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you should see above, Eagles247 withdrew the accusation of sockpuppetry, and reduced your block from indefinite to a month. Your block is no longer about abusing mulitple accounts, but rather for disruptive editing in general. As an example, this edit (and the horrible edit summary) is definitely disruptive. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 June 2011 (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.

I have re-blocked this account for one month due to block evasion. See User:KingDoddy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 19 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ok, I have proof my edits are NOT distruptive. As User:Pretty Greeen said, my edits are positive although a few are distruptive. Lets face it, If you have never made a mistake, you have never made ANYTHING. Eagles 24/7, Your not telling me EVERY edit you have made is perfect and not 1 of your 24,000 have not been distruptive? I have made about 350 edits, around 3 have been bad, Ok. Thaht's not enough to be blocked by, also user:King Doddy is my friend, I know him and he created his account because I spread the word of WIKIPEDIA, the place where miracles happen, I shared the love of WIKIPEDIA with somebody else and they joined the family of WIKIPEDIA. So, Eagles or Mr.Admin please look into the bottom of your heart, do I really deserve a month's ban? How will I update the magical world with my knowlegde? I also noticed an admin accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:barrowj2008, I hadn't even heard of that dude before I got accused. Please re-consider your punishments and don't take away some of the last inches of happiness in my life. Barrovian (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Presumably, your edit below indicates you have withdrawn this incoherent request. Kuru (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (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.

Okay, not one of my edits have been disruptive, and I implore anyone to point one out to me if it exists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barrovian

I suggested that your block be reduced to a month as you have made some good edits to Wikipedia. I thank Eagles247 for taking the time to look into it and am a little embarrassed that I defended you given your behaviour since then. Nevertheless, it's been good having someone look over the Barrow A.F.C. page: if nothing else, it helped motivate me into improving my edits to the page. So take the break, continue to read Wikipedia, and look around and learn a few of the rules. If you accuse others of vandalism, if you insist that pages are your way, then you'll run into trouble. But if you stick to editing, and accept that on Wikipedia others can change your edits, then you could still be a good user. So please, come back in a month, with your same attitude to improving Barrow AFC and other related pages, but with a new attitude in how you interact with others, and you'll be an excellent contributor to this wiki. Pretty Green (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that ^ Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Green, you pretty much saved my wiki life, and I will learn from this mistake. It proves that you are a good person and you want the best for not just the Barrow AFC Article, but for me, I promice I will come back on July and treat everybody else like I would want to be treated. Thanks! (Just one more bit of selfishness - Don't update the kits, I wanna do it, It's hassle, but fun!) Barrovian (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have reblocked this account for two months due to block evasion. Please see User:BAFC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I come back to wiki I have messages saying I have evaded my block. I'm just saying: Why would I risk getting blocked again about 2 days before my block ended? I can wait 2 days! Mr. Eagles. Please do one of your I.P. address checking things, which will prove I am innocent. I haven't visited wikipedia since about 2 weeks ago, as I knew I was banned so it'd be pointless.

I learnt from the "King Doddy" evade and I wouldn't risk doing it again, so please, stop assuming before you have evidence. Barrovian (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser can't prove innocence and judging by BAFC's behavior, it is very clear it's you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Eagles. I have decided to file a complaint to wikipedia regarding your Iniquitous and immoral behaviour. Barrovian (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say something else, I originally got banned for sock puppeting, which I was proved innocent, you couldn't face being wrong so you abnned me again for distruptive editing, there was no proof of that, I then fair enough created another account, so ytouy banned me for another month. THEN, I visited wiki yesterday, 2 days before my ban ended... AND... I have a message from you saying I had evaded my block, which you have NO proof that it was me! You in my eyes are abusing your right to be an administrator. Barrovian (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, then you can start an ANI thread about me when your block expires. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've emailed them stating your offenses and if they cannot do it I will report you to CEOP. (Internet Police)

Also,I'm not gonna do it, but if I delete my account and create a new one, I cannot be blocked for sock puppetry or block evasion, as Barrovian wouldn't be blocked coz he's deleted! (I'm not going to) Barrovian (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre? Good luck with that. And it's impossible for you to delete an account on Wikipedia, so no, if you create another account, it will be blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 18 July 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked, as The User:BAFC is not my account, I would not risk getting banned two days before my initial block ended. You have no proof. Barrovian (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are now indefinitely blocked for the legal threat above. Please note, as per WP:EVADE, it is YOU the PERSON who are blocked, and creating a new account is considered block evasion, and any WP:SOCK accounts can be blocked on sight (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:39, 19 July 2011 (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.

Ha! Is that the best you can do, You better wait and see what happens. This is war! Barrovian (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Bwilkins, you clearly do not understand what I am originally banned for, as User: BAFC is not my account. Let me explain, Eagles247 falsely banned me for block evasion, which is bad. Now I have not done block evasion, as I am a good boy. Now, That was not a legal threat, it was a warning.

Decline reason:

Per diffs linked below to comments above. If this is war, we're not letting you re-enter the Rhineland anytime soon. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (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.

If I'm not allowed in, I may have to invade! lol. No seriously, You can't ban me forever. Maybe lower the ban to 3 Months at least?Barrovian (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will first have to retract your legal threat above and admit to socking with User:BAFC before anyone will consider shortening your block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never was going to report you to CEOP, and I regret it a bit... but I can't admit to "socking" with BAFC, because I didn't, I if I did sock with him/her I would admit it now, because I am banned till the world ends! So, I am telling you, I do not own BAFC's account, it's probably some innoncent guy or girl who is wondering in what's going on. Barrovian (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you "created another account". Can you say what account? Unless you do it is unlikely that you will be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was referring to User:KingDoddy, which he has admitted belongs to him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrovian, you stated in an unblock request above, "user:King Doddy is my friend" but later admitted to socking with that account. You've lied to us before about socking, so how can we believe you when you say BAFC does not belong to you, despite the overwhelming behavioral evidence? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I admitted I was wrong, and I after King Doddy I realised the concequences of Block evasion, so I wouldn't have risked doing it again. About me saying hye is my friend: Technically I'm not lying: Theres nothing stopping me being friends with myself... but fair enough, I shouldn't have lied - But I assure you, BAFC is not my account, as any I.P tracking thingy would prove. Barrovian (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is you and your continued lying is not helping you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can it be clearly me, when it's not? You just assume of sock puppetry, like user:barrowj2008, you banned him for no reason, I noticed. (It says on external link sock puppets of me) Which you again, have abused your right of being an admin. I repeat, User:BAFC is not my account. Barrovian (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much ready to lock this talkpage - the violation of WP:NLT has not been fully retracted, the editor "only regret[s] it a bit", and the continued statements about "abuse of power" when that's clearly not the case have brought this to a point where it's abusing talkpage access while blocked. Nothing's moving forward here, other than having given the user enough WP:ROPE, which they have used quite well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Lock It, But it won't help anybody, especially Wikipedia. Barrovian (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear, Mr. Eagles, Mr.Wilkins and all administrator people out there. Over the last few days I have been having a think, I don't believe I deserve to be unblocked now, but I do think you should consider lowering my ban to prehaps a month or 2. I have reviewed all info displayed to me, like I cannot be unblocked without admitting I socked with User:bafc, Unfortunately, I cannot confess to that crime, as I am not the one that commited it, there is obviously nothing to lose, and I would admit if it was me, but as I have said before it is not my account. I also would like to apologise for abusing many different things, such as talk pages and block evasion. But I still stand for my belief that I should not have been blocked for socking with User:BAFC, as (your getting tired of hearing this) it is not my account. So please, you may not want to unblock me for all the mean things I have said to you over the last few weeks. But I want to you think long term. Look at my statistics and edits, they have been helpful, and making a brighter future. Take some time in making your decision, and let me prove that I can be a good citizen. Thank You. Barrovian (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't know whether you are the same person as BAFC or not, but that is not important. The essential question is "have you given any indication that unblocking you will benefit Wikipedia?" and the answer to that is "no". You have a history of various kinds of unconstructive editing, and more than a vague "I won't do it again, let me prove that I can be a good citizen" would be needed to persuade us that you really will edit constructively in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK, Well you may be aware with the Barrow AFC Article, if you look at the edit count on that, you will see I have made quite a high number of edits, resulting in a more quality structured page, which In my opinion has helped that article in some way. If you unblocked me, I could continue to help structure that article. When you GOOGLE "Barrow AFC" The wikipedia page is the second answer, if somebody decided to click on this option, they would obviously see the wiki page, and I have noticed recently there have been quite a few major changes to the club, which have not been added to the article. I in this circumstance,have noticed this, and If I wasn't blocked, I would have added these changes to the article. This delay in uploading information has prevented this article from being up to date. That would be the benifit of wikipedia from unblocking me. Thank You. Barrovian (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2011 (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 you've continued to make time-wasting unblock requests that don't address the reason for your block, I've extended the block so you're unable to edit this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Barrow AFC 2011.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Barrow AFC 2011.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]