User talk:MCM0313

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MCM0313, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

How does one go about adding a link/footnote (i.e., a new reference) without making the link appear in the text?

This explains how to insert footnotes: Help:Footnotes; but it sounds like you want to just put in a general reference that doesn't link to a particular part of the text. If you want to just add a general reference, you could just put it as a bullet in the reference section of the article. Or if it's just a related link, you can put it in the external links section. I could have misunderstood your question, so if that doesn't help, let me know with some more detail. I'll watch your page so you can respond here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre your question

Not silly at all. I stoped by for another reason and can offer an answer. The simple way to add a citation but not have a link appear in the text is to either add it in the external links section of an article or (and I believe this is what you seek) to physically add it into the ref or footnote section right below the words "{{Refist}}", but simply not use the "<ref>(citation here)</ref>" which are used to bracket inline citations. See WP:CITE#General references. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MCM0313 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mom (Futurama). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

I'm blocked because an admin "doesn't believe my defense." Check my edits---I'm not the same guy. I honestly don't know what to do now. I don't want to have to create a new account because I'd already made some progress as an editor. MCM0313 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:APPEAL. JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnInDC, thank you. MCM0313 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

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).

MCM0313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Check the edits. Aside from a couple ill-advised pranks shortly after my registration, this account has not vandalized. There is no risk of it happening in the future---I mainly work on clarifying wording and the like. Not much room for vandalism there. MCM0313 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked as a vandal. You are blocked because you are a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:07, 29 July 2012 (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).

MCM0313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As is mentioned in block notices, having the same IP address does not necessarily mean two users are the same person. In this case, we use the same wireless router. CheckUser is not infallible. MCM0313 (talk) 3:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2012 (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).

MCM0313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Confirmed how? And by whom? If you're going to wield that much power you've got to be more transparent. MCM0313 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I just reconfirmed, that's who. The conclusions in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yummyanaljuices are sufficient; I'd have reached the same. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:33, 29 July 2012 (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.

Fine, keep me blocked.

I can see when I've been defeated and nothing I can say will change your minds. But just for the sake of argument, consider this: if I were "Yummyanaljuices" (technically, he'd be my sock puppet, not the other way around, since this account was created first), what good would it actually do you to block me? The editing done under this account has been overwhelmingly constructive and productive. There's virtually no risk of disruptive editing. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive---that's Wikipedia policy. What are you preventing by blocking this account? It's been proven that this particular account has virtually no pattern of destructive behavior. Blocking my one legitimate account wouldn't do anything to keep me from socking further---I would need only to go to a wi-fi hotspot, since this laptop changes IP addresses based on wireless routers. In fact, one could argue that blocking this account would serve to encourage further problem behavior, as my one means of being constructive has been eliminated, and the frustration would likely motivate a person to try to get revenge---by further vandalizing and sockpuppeteering.

You know what? Fine. I admit it. You're not going to go against anti-socking policy, so I may as well just say it. Most of those listed under the sock puppet investigation are actually me. But I do know for a fact that CheckUser makes mistakes. "Poptartsrock9" is not me. I have no idea who it is, but apparently CheckUser says it's me. ("N---let" isn't me either, but that wasn't CheckUser.) I saw no edits made by this user, so there can't be any disruptive behavior. Just unblock him/her (the other one can stay blocked because it's clearly offensive). Don't punish someone else for my misbehavior. Unblocking them would be no risk to you---like I said, I could conceivably set up a new sock account tomorrow. If I want to vandalize, I can go to another IP and do it. Just unblock them. MCM0313 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, be a jerk. That user is not me, though, and likely did not intend to vandalize.65.29.214.20 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2012 (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).

MCM0313 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You claim blocking is done to prevent harm to the site, but so many of your editors are simply block-happy and will issue PUNITIVE blocks for virtually any reason. I've been a productive editor and made many positive contributions to the site. There is ZERO risk of damage from unblocking me. I've served my time. I won't cause any trouble, and I won't abuse multiple accounts any further. I simply want my own, legit account back.MCM0313 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, the recent history of socking, trolling, and deception make it unlikely that an unblock would lead to productive behavior. You've made it clear what kind of person you are. Kuru (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (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.

To User:Kuru

Let's not make this personal. I can understand, though, if you guys need proof of my good intentions, based on past behavior. Tell you what: I'll go away for six months, as is standard policy, and then do the whole second-chance-petition thing. If there's any evidence at that time of recent sockpuppetry, or if my proposed edit is seen as unconstructive, then you can keep me blocked and it will be only fair. So, see you in May. MCM0313 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]