User talk:Lord of the Pit

No hope left.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY HOW ANNOYED I AM AT "MR LORD OF THE PIT" OR WHATEVER HIS NAME IS AND WOULD LIKE A CHAT WITH HIM BECAUSE MY THINGS KEEP BEING BLOCKED FOR BEING IN CAPITALS. THATS BECAUSE MY CAPS KEY IS STCUK AND SO IS SHIFT! (95.146.181.246 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

All hope is gone, I have been on Wikipedia for over twenty days now, and I have edited more than 300 article edits and now, I am stopped by this? A block? C'mon, I mean, User:Orangesodakid and User:Coldplay Expert have been granted ip exemption and why haven't I? It is not my fault. I am a good editor. Again, all hope is gone. --Lord of the Pit (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 666[reply]

Over the Top

What exactly can you do on Wikipedia?

If anyone could please answer this question, that would be great. Thanks --Jap1hockey (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you want... as long as you're helping us building an encyclopedia in some way or another. A8 UDI 14:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M62 locomotive

You reverted my edits when all that was wrong was a simple typo [1] that was easily fixed. I was in the middle of converting duplicate links to single links using the "name" element in a reference tag.

It was not a test as you labelled it on my talk page [2] but part of an effort to improve the article. .

Also when leaving a message on a talk page please remember to include a heading.

Please be more careful in future. Thank you.83.100.251.196 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing that out. I am new to Wikipedia and I still have a lot to learn. I am sorry --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Bandić

You reverted my edit claiming that it was a test, when in reality it was not (i added a reference etc.). Can I get a clarification? 93.139.43.113 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I did so from this ip : (talk) ...

Sorry, I read the tag and thought that it was vandalism. Please disregard. --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello Lord of the Pit, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

Regarding your edit to User_talk:90.220.88.167, please read "Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith". 90.220.88.167 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding IP block exemption

Hi LotP.

IP block exemption is usually granted only in the event that a user is being blocked unintentionally on a regular basis, or in the event that a user's IP range needs to be blocked for a long period of time. Only in exceptional cases is it granted preemptively. If at some point you find that your IP address is blocked, you should still be able to edit your talk page. Follow the instructions on this page, and an administrator will either unblock you or, depending on the circumstances, they may give you an exemption.

If you think that your case does warrant preemptive IP block exemption, please tell me. If the circumstances involve information that should not be posted publicly, you can email me if you want. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:Brandon blocked my ip address from editing. Could you please grant ip exemption? Thanks. --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J, could you please grant me ip exemption? If you look at my contributions, I have done nothing but help this encyclopedia. Please? --Lord of the Pit (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Which edit specifically are you referring to? Please advise on my Talk Page. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Looked like a legit edit to me. I've corrected the article to reflect the issue he highlighted. I'll post to and then remove the warning from his talk page so he doesn't have a black mark (or get another black mark for removing it himself). --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit?

What are you refering to I reverted back the mona lisa article from the blank page and you reverted it back to the blank page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.30.20 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. The repeating characters were part of the article, someone vandalized the page. Lord, please be more careful about reverting merely suspicious looking edits without verifying that they are actually vandalism. That's twice this morning you've jumped the gun. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that the repeating characters were part of the article. I was just looking at the "Tag." --Lord of the Pit (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few legit uses of repeating characters I've seen that still get tagged by the wiki software. I'm guessing in the case of Mona Lisa it was because someone used four sequential periods to indicate an ellipsis at the end of a sentence (legit, though technically more accurate with the ellipsis special HTML entity, …, followed by a period, e.g. ….). It's just something to be wary of; the tag doesn't automatically mean vandalism. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I will keep that in mind! --Lord of the Pit (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, welcom to wikipedia (I guess this is to late) btw, why did you ask J to give you an IP excemption, you edit from the same place or something? don't worry about it, If your a good editor, you are ok. anyway, just droped in to say hi and welcome to wikipedia, back to editing. regards--Orange soda kid 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the "welcome." --Lord of the Pit (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2009 (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).

Lord of the Pit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been a good editor to Wikipedia, and I don't think that this ip address should be blocked. I think that the user who is responsible should be indefinetly blocked. I have not made one single vandalistic act against Wikipedia. Please re-consider. Thanks --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline per reasons stated below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2009 (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.

You haven't given us the information we need to fix this block, as you yourself are not blocked. The block message should tell you what information to post here. Syrthiss (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What information do you need? All I know is someone hacked into User:Penguin Warchief's account and has been vandalizing his page, so he shouldn't get blocked, nor should this ip --Lord of the Pit (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2009 (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).

Lord of the Pit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This ip address, 12.20.146.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is registered to Eastern View High School. Please consider unblocking this ip. --Lord of the Pit (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considered; but the block history of that IP makes it clear that it would not be to Wikipedia's benefit to do so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:10, 12 November 2009 (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.

.

Looking at this, I'm not inclined to unblock the IP nor grant you an IP block exemption. There just is insufficient history to your account to feel justified in that decision. I'll leave the unblock request in place for another admin to consider, though. Syrthiss (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any autoblocks active for this account, so I'm not sure what problem you're running into... m.o.p 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an autoblock; however, User:12.20.146.126 is hardblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can u unblock a hard-block? --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Lord of the Pit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

12.20.146.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

{{schoolblock}}

Blocking administrator: Brandon (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: There is no reason to unblock that IP, as it is not impacting your ability to edit (as far as I can tell). m.o.p 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, If it was not impacting my ability to edit, then why would I be asking for an un-block in the first place??? --Lord of the Pit (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (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).

Lord of the Pit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am only going to say this once. This ip address has been hardblocked because of vandalism, yes, but why did User:Coldplay Expert and User:Orangesodakid get granted ip exemption and I not? I am no vandal, just a guy who is trying to help Wikipedia by stopping vandalism. You can look at my contributions and clearly see that I have made not one bad vandalistic edit to Wikipedia. Once again, ip address is 12.20.146.126. Please reply asap. --Lord of the Pit (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Try editing your user page or something now. m.o.p 21:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works. Thank You --Lord of the Pit (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UTM

Hello, Lord of the Pit (which I have a lot of fun saying). When a user or IP is warned to the level 4 or 4IM warning, they most likely have already been reported so adding additional level 4 templates are not needed and may actually be counterproductive as the user/IP will not take it seriously. Thank you, Tom A8 UDI 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hello User:Lord of the Pit, I award you this barstar for your various vandal rollbacks. Keep up the good work! Tsange ^►talk 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (desktop environment)

Thanks for your help with IP vandalism on this article! - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]