User talk:CrystalMania002

Welcome

Hello, CrystalMania002, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

CrystalMania002, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marking HP Inc. as a hoax?

Because you thought it "might be'" a hoax? Did you look at the references? Like this 2015 Fortune article? Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at PowerTV. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have repeatedly placed "hoax" templates on articles without doing any research & apparently because you "thought the article looked like a hoax" or it "might be a hoax". Shearonink (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Shearonink. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:KrakatoaKatie/CSD/Keagan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. These user pages are clearly marked as being part of an educational/test section by the user and blanking the content is not necessary. If you think the content should be blanked or whatever then discuss that with User:KrakatoaKatie. Shearonink (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2016 (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).

CrystalMania002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This wasn't my fault. I always wanted to edit the encyclopedia alot, but I kept making disruptive edits. I was not shouting, nor creating uncommon redirects or inserting non-free content after being calm. I still need to get my original account unblocked. CrystalMania002 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. Your only remaining option is to wait at least 6 months without editing any page on the Wikipedia, then use WP:UTRS on your original account. At the moment, all you are doing is proving you cannot be trusted, as you are aggressively violating WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2016 (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).

CrystalMania002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

6 months points to 25 February 2017. I cannot accept that duration. Thus, every unblock request a user makes will always get declined. CrystalMania002 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you cannot accept that, there's no reason to expect you'll ever accept any policy or guideline disagreeing with your personal opinion. You were told what your remaining options are. Talk page access revoked. Huon (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (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 the next reviewing administrator: if you decline the unblock request, please revoke talk page access. This chronic sockpuppeteer isn't getting the message. They are not eligible for unblock consideration here and given the long, long history of abuse, six months is probably wildly optimistic. --Yamla (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]