User talk:Lord Sinestro

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of TheManWhoLaughs (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Lord Sinestro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Adoption offer

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your adoption tag and thought I might be of help to you.

I'm Trusilver, I come from the West Coast of the United States so I'm in Pacific Time. That doesn't matter much though because I'm on a wide and often unpredictable number of hours. Primarily, I'm more involved with the project than I am with editing individual articles. My primary job is recent change patrolling. That is the often mind-numbing task of watching edits as they are occurring and making changes as needed - usually this means reverting vandalism.

I also work with the League of Copyeditors which is the Wikiproject that I founded close to a year ago. That requires very little of my time though, it has evolved into its own lifeform and will continue flourishing whether or not I continue participating with it.

Other than that, I do work on articles from time to time and have spent the last two weeks in a massive rewrite of the Cirque du Soleil article which is currently sitting in my sandbox. Although I specialize in two tasks, I have gotten a wide variety of experience.

If you would be interested in learning from me, send me a message and we will get started.

Regardless, you have a good evening. Trusilver 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a page where we can discuss any issues or questions that you may have here. Go and take a look at it when you get a chance and let me know if you have any questions. Trusilver 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DBZ

Yes it is, I'm watching it right now. I will source it as soon as I can Stormin' Foreman 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppet

Sorry If you are not BlueShrek, I was suspicious because he had made the same type of edit (reversing the release date for dbz season 3) as well as contributing to comic book heros as did you. Sorry if I misjudged you, I will not push this matter further unless it is urgent. BrenDJ 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown Edits

You and Zythe need to discuss the content matter to resolve your differences of opinion on the edits. No sense in it getting reverted back and forth. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed? Excuse me? The article as it was, was over-detailed and therfore was a copyright violation. We do not for instance, list every conversation in Great Expectations, simply a plot overview. I have simplified it to stop it becoming too long and illegal, alright? Referring to other editors as vandals and ordering them to quit can be taken in a very offensive way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are allowed to edit. And coincidentally, I was suggestign that you both discuss the merits (or flaws) of the edits on the article discussion page. That is, unless this is more of a personal matter. I am not trying to squeeze anyone's shoes here, but a revert war is the last thing we need int he article. Disucssing the matter on the article discussion page allows others to weigh in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the talk page, but you're not participating? Anyway, you've now breached WP:3RR and are contributing towards an article that breaches copyright and will be ridiculously long by the time we reach Countdown #0. I'm not "removing information" as you put it. The detailed stuff? It's in the actual books. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to calm down. This matter can be discussed, but not if you two are going to snipe at each other. It's a difference of interpretation. It isn't like the other guy shot your dog and ran off with your wimmin-folk. Please try to approach the matter professionally and politely, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now in violation of WP:3RR in the Countdown article. You may not revert another edit for a 24 hour period. You were warned about this, but I will not report you. If you revert one more time, I will submit the complaint myself. The rules are there for a reason. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown Edits (again)

You might find it useful to try and sidestep the edit-warring by talking about the matter with the other editor in question or, failing that the Discussion page. Revert-warring - especially over uncited statements that I am going to remove without reference - is simply disruptive. I am not bitching at either one of you; I have been in edit wars before myself, and I can understand the impulse, but we cannot have it here. Discussion works. Even if it doesn't, its the next step in Dispute Resolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whysoserious Phone #

Here's the #: 1-800-395-9646. It really wasn't that important to the overall game, so that's why they don't want to put it in the main article. I don't know if you did the game yourself, but I did, and it was only relevant to the first "level", so to speak, of the game. But there it is anyway, it still works I believe. Cheers, One Fried Egg 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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

Request reason:

Because for one im not a sock puppet and no one had any proof stating otherwise. How is this a fair block? Nobody has even disscussed this im just banned? WTF?

Decline reason:

sockpuppet per this — Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:52, 30 July 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.

I have asked Chrislk02 (talk · contribs), an admin experienced in dealing with Wrestlinglover420, to take a look at this case. Sandstein 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am researching this. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know whos behind this sock or whatever but i can assure you its not me.Wrestlinglover420 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, there are little or no common article edits however the same genre of apparent edits. I cannot make proof of a sockpuppet case from what I have seen here. I reccomend unblocking and keeping a close eye on this editor. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am however going to request a second opinion from the blocking administrator, yamla. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Chrislk02's talk page, this user (that is, Lord Sinestro) is a confirmed sockpuppet of an abusive vandal. --Yamla 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]