User talk:December 21, 2012

Your recent edits to Algiers

Hello. As you keep reverting my revets to the Algiers article, I tought I should contact you. Well, that article is currently a rough, it is full of mistakes, and is as you can probably see, a machine-translated text (from the French Wikipedia), so this article isn't presentable as it is for the public. You must know, Wikipedia is one of the most visited website on the internet. If you can make this article better (as you just said "it needs some work", feel free to edit the user subpage/sandbox I made for you by clicking here. If you succesfully make a usable article of it, feel free to add it to the real page again. Sincerly, --escondites 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, If you can not fix these articles right now, couldn't you leave the correct versions as they are untill you made a better version? --escondites 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, December 21, 2012! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Marlith 04:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2007

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to American Pie. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. [1] Copyrighted lyrics absolutely cannot be added to Wikipedia unless under GDFL-compatible licensure. Please do not restore these.

Also, the interpretation that was added (whatever the source) constitutes original research (please read of you are unfamiliar with this one), and cannot be kept. Several more or less authoritative interpretations are linked from American Pie#External links, and Rich Kulawiec's is linked twice. Long quotes from Kulawiec or anyone else are not encyclopedic, and not needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: please do not edit war in articles I watch. I am quick to report sockpuppets. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kitia (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley House

While I am flattered by your nomination of Joseph Priestley House at WP:FAC, the article is not yet ready for FAC (no peer review, still adding material). I am also puzzled as you have made zero edits to the article. Would you be OK with withdrawing the nomination? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

December 21, 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please note that I am the only sockpuppet of Kitia, unlike what others have claimed. I created this accounht out of love of Wikipedia and intended no harm. I have never vandalised, and I was unjustly blocked for reaseons explained on User talk:Kitia. Then, my talk page was unjustly protected by an admin who didn't even care to red what I had to say. I assume the same will happen to me, but oh well. I guess I will never edit Wikipedia again. And to you specifically Sandstein, since you obviously cannot check the evidence there, YGM and IBYB were not sockpuppets, just several people who used my computer.

Decline reason:

If your account is blocked, then you can appeal that block, but you can't create new accounts to avoid that block. Doing so reflects badly on you, and makes it less likely, not more likely, that you will persuade the community that your original account should be unblocked. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 30 December 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).

December 21, 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As above. And to FisherQueen, who reviewed the block: I would have, had my talk page not been unjustly protected by Sandstein.

Decline reason:

It is not permissible to create new accounts to evade a block. Period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

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).

December 21, 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As above, again. To Jpgordon: Oh really? Even when you don't have anything to say about it and your talk page has been unjustly protected? Help, Wikipedia!

Decline reason:

Admitted sockpuppet, enforceable by block. Note: Instead of creating a block-evading sockpuppet, you could have e-mailed unblock-en-l. Also see my comment below about the alleged bad faith rollback. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:10, 31 December 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.

Please do not remove my edit declining your request. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User talk:Kitia was blocked because you kept making unblock requests no matter how many people declined, is that correct? Do you see any similarity between what you did on that talk page, and what you're doing now? Based on your prior experience, can you predict what the most likely thing to happen here next is? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what am I supposed to do? It was protected because Sandstein, after I posted a legitamate remark, simply pressed the rollback button and protected it. I AM INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! December 21, 2012 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This was the edit immediately prior to protection. No legitimate remark here, just an attempt to cheat the unblock request process. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Oh, you mean the protection of User_talk:Kitia... the user of which you are an admitted sockpuppet. I see no legitimate remark that was wrongly reverted. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]