User talk:IRL7

April 2018

Hello. Multiple editors have previously raised these various points (with several of your various socks). And so none of this should be news. But here goes anyway:

Creating multiple and additional accounts to evade a previous block is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you are determined to contribute positively to Wikipedia, then open an unblock request on one of your previous profiles. Do not keep creating new ones.
Capitalising every word is contrary to English grammatical convention. Words like "other", "not", "stated" and other similar nouns and verbs have no reason to be capitalised in the English language. Having advised of this obvious error multiple times, other editors have no obligation to continue to keep correcting it on your behalf.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to add useful information to Wikipedia but thanks for the advice— Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Your thanks for the advice is all very well. Evidence of heeding and acting on the advice would be much more welcome. If the behaviours noted above (IDHT to the point of disruption, continuing to use and abuse multiple accounts, etc), then I will seek escalation. As before. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to act on your advise and replace the mistakes but in the Midleton article I do not see why the Midleton demographics I put up was deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs)

IDHT

Hi. You didn't listen to the community 6 months ago (when your various socks were blocked for contributing more noise and disruption than any value), and I have no reason to believe that you are capable of listening now (WP:AGF long since having expired), but - because I am a glutton for punishment - I am going to try one last time to highlight the concerns with your patterns of editing. Ignoring the constant lying, block evasion and general etiquette violations, these are:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Randomly and poorly copy/pasting stats from the 2016 census is NOT improving the project. It simply is not. Stop doing it.
WP:ENGVAR - Wikipedia (this English language variant of it at least) is written with English speakers in mind. English language conventions do not randomly capitalise every second word. For no obvious reason. Stop doing this.
MOS:BOLD - Wikipedia does not expect bold styling to be applied to every mention of the subject within the article. Stop doing this.

This is the last such message you will receive from me. The evasion and sock-puppetry alone is block worthy. The rest falls into the spirit of WP:IDHT ("If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.") Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel threatened and you are abusing your power and this might need to go further— Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs)

Carrigtwohill

I am not aloud to Add Data or Give and Insight to what it is like living in the town (Population ,Place and Society)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blarney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitechurch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of JackW436 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 9 April 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).

IRL7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that similarities of edits I had with a sock puppet Jackw736 could lead to some suspicions, I can see that our edits may have been similar ,as maybe topics like the general society may have interested me and the main reason is I had little experience in how it should be formatted and how edits should take place like the guidelines etc on capitals as guliopez said. I believe there can be a resolution to the blocking as I am really proud of my edits and contributions to the Wikipedia project as a whole ,most certainly there should be zero tolerance to distributive editors. Thanks for listen I hope to hear back for ye soon. IRL7 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whilst the previous sock accounts are too old for checkuser, the behavioural evidence, in terms of editing style, articles edited, syntax, communication style and so forth, is overwhelming. I have no doubt whatsoever that this account is sock. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:30, 1 May 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.

Please don't post duplicate unblock requests. The unblock request queue is long, so please just be patient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]