User talk:Grignard4120

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert Reich. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UGAdawgs2010 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 03:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Grignard4120 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please someone help me here. I have no idea how to prove to people that I'm not this UGAdawgs person, or this Jahntellero7 person. Can someone please run a checkinguser program on me to prove that I'm not this person? I've onlly edited like 4 things ever when I didn't have this username, and that was like 3 months ago.I'm just being ONE user to take 2 seconds to run my computer and show that I'M NOT THIS PERSON. Please don't block me without giving me at least a fair shake. This isn't fair at all. I just want one person to run my computer, it can't take that long. It's not fair to just block me and not show that Im that person. I'm not! At least give me the benefit of the doubt and run my compter internet address and see for yourself.

Decline reason:

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, it can help determine a technical connection between accounts, but the fact is the majority of sockpuppets are blocked based on behavioral evidence, and the conclusion at the SPI case was that you are so obvious it was not needed. There is also some suggestion below that even if we were to believe you you have still been editing disruptively. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2010 (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 didn't have a username back then, but you don't need one to edit right?

Putting aside the sockpuppet/not a sockpuppet situation, do you plan to resume edit warring if unblocked? If more of your previous editing patterns are in store, there's an entirely separate problem that seriously needs to be addressed. - Vianello (Talk) 06:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wouldn't, I didn't even know that was a rule, otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place. I stumbled upon JanTellero7's page when looking at the article history and think that he may have made a couple edits that were right, so I asked about it. If someone does actually run the check they'll see I'm not the same person, even though my wording and edits were slightly similar. In the future I'd obviously utilize the talk page first but I'm just getting used to this.Grignard4120 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (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).

Grignard4120 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Of course I wouldn't, I didn't even know that was a rule, otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place. I stumbled upon JanTellero7's page when looking at the article history and think that he may have made a couple edits that were right, so I asked about it. If someone does actually run the check they'll see I'm not the same person, even though my wording and edits were slightly similar. In the future I'd obviously utilize the talk page first but I'm just getting used to this. I e-mailed a checkuser, and he ran the check himself and found that "you and UGAdawgs edited from different IP addresses"

Decline reason:

I agree with that; indeed, the IP addresses are different. Regardless, the technical checkuser results along with your behavior make it clear that this block is correct. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:12, 7 August 2010 (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.

Your selective clensing of your talk page does not support your story. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't see the point in having those on my talk page...yeah I was probably over the line with the narrow minded thing but I was getting angry when everybody said that I'm this UGA person, when I'm clearly not, if anyone bothered to run a checkusing on me. Grignard 4120