User talk:Brian Boru is awesome

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Venom (comics). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields.
Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either.
00:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2013 (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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've felt that I have paid my duesBrian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What went wrong leading to your block? Also, what edits do you want to make now? PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (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.

That I would like to edit comic book articles. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC) And that I was revert happy.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2015 (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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was revert happy

Decline reason:

That does not even begin to address the reasons for the block. I suggest that you try taking the very good advice offered by the anonymous editor below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2015 (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.

Comment: Hello. Even though I am not an administrator and don't have an account, I am an expierenced editor. I am telling you now that your request "I was revert happy", doesn't address the reason for your block and it will most likely be declined for this reason. I would recommend reading the policy page that I have linked to you here and then changing your appeal to make it more effective. Remember, you can edit your appeal template while it is pending review. Best wishes, 216.246.149.185 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced? You've only been here for a day.no offense. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Boru is awesome: My IP address has changed because I have moved locations, but I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time. I do mean what I've said above though. Your request will most likely be declined in its current state. Just letting you know. Also, please indent replys to posts by adding colons : to the beginning of each reply line. Each reply should have one more colon than the post before it. 216.246.149.185 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2015 (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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't edit war and abuse editing. I will not use sock puppets, I will change my behavior

Decline reason:

Your responses have become argumentative and show the opposite that you are going to cooperate. w^L^{<speak·check>} 13:27, 28 July 2015 (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.

Comment - For one thing, this unblock request doesn't address the rampant sockpuppetry and disruptive editing that continued after you were indefinitely blocked, nor does it demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, or that this behavior won't continue if you are unblocked. - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you're commenting now. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm concerned that the reasons for your block (and the sockpuppetry that continued after the block) will continue. You haven't shown that you understand the reasons for your block, and when that's brought up your response is this comment. That kind of response doesn't indicate your willingness to contribute to a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't trust me Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request does not indicate that your behavior will change. Please read WP:THREAD; the IP editor above explained the use of colons to indent lines, to show that you're responding to a specific comment. Is there a specific reason you're not indenting your responses? - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier not to Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP editor has indented your comments for you. It's not exactly reassuring that you're here to edit collaboratively when you can't even be bothered to format your talk page comments or address the reasons for your block in the first place. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you seem concerned about me. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had told this editor that his appeal wouldn't go very far when it read "I won't use sockpuppets or block evasion" because based on the block log entries, this editor was never blocked for evasion, but rather was blocked for large accounts of disruptive editing, and then was reblocked for spamming another editor's inbox. However, based on what Aoidh has said here, it seems that this editor has indeed been blocked for socking as well. Also, an appeal won't go through unless the editor can prove, not just claim that his/her block-worthy behaviors will stop. Sorry for not catching this earlier, but because this appeal is only one claim, it still will be declined in its current state. 216.246.149.185 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. w^L^{<speak·check>} 13:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As of October 10, 2015, checkuser confirms this user continues to sock; this should be taken into consideration when evaluating any future unblock requests or standard offer attempts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InterC.E.P.T. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect InterC.E.P.T.. Since you had some involvement with the InterC.E.P.T. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21790 was submitted on Jun 11, 2018 11:15:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21798 was submitted on Jun 12, 2018 02:28:58. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21857 was submitted on Jun 18, 2018 23:27:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking

This editor continues to edit while logged out and evade their block by IP socking.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22064 was submitted on Jul 14, 2018 19:46:58. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TPA restored

Note I have restored your talk page to allow you to appeal. As a CheckUser confirmed you were socking 6 months ago, you’ll need to wait to December until it is considered, but I don’t mind restoring TPA in advance. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2018 (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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't edit war

Decline reason:

That does not address the reasons for your block (edit warring is just one part of it) or the extensive socking that had gone on from well before your current block up until six months ago. You have pretty much got one chance here - you need to make it a good one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2018 (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.

To expand a little, anyone can look back over your talk page history and see a lengthy succession of problems going back to 2011, including (but not restricted to) edit warring - and admins can examine your UTRS requests. The problems include a lot of simply not listening (for example, just saying the same things over and over again after they have been rejected, like previous unblock requests and that sequence of near-identical UTRS requests), chronic misuse of multiple accounts, block evasion, and a failure to engage in meaningful dialog when people try to approach you. If you want any chance of being unblocked, you'll need to offer a convincing explanation of these problems together with an explanation of what you will do differently if unblocked - you will need to convince a reviewer that it is to the advantage of Wikipedia to have you back on the project. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2018 (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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't edit war, misuse accounts, block evasion

Decline reason:

This is nowhere near sufficient to be convincing, given your long history of abuse. See WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 11:33, 2 January 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.

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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

No reason given, but you edited logged out a few days ago. You have to wait until June 15 to appeal now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 21 December 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.

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).

Brian Boru is awesome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

review

Decline reason:

I think you missed the "June 15" part of the last declined request. Further examples of WP:IDHT will result in this talk page being locked again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:49, 30 December 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.

Nomination of List of Imperial Guard members for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Imperial Guard members is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Imperial Guard members until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything...

Still here

Nomination of Alternative versions of Wonder Woman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative versions of Wonder Woman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Wonder Woman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]