User talk:Mangoeater1000

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Appleeater123 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You have been blocked' from editing for a period of 48 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NYU-Poly Edits

Hi Mangoeater1000, some of your recent edits on the NYU-Poly and NYU articles, generally regarding NYU-Poly, have been deemed to be unconstructive to the articles in question. We would be appreciative if you could please take a look at the Talk Page sections for further information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polytechnic_Institute_of_New_York_University#Rollback_edits_of_sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_University#Mangoeater1000_.2F_128.238.110..2A

Thanks. --Schiez (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Deans of Engineering at NYU for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Deans of Engineering at NYU is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deans of Engineering at NYU until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Thank you. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended to three months per additional socks found. --Rschen7754 08:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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).

Mangoeater1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was out of Wiki for a long time. How did I get blocked? Mangoeater1000 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please take the time to read the material above. Kuru (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

---

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 contributed article, List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Polytechnic Institute of New York University – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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).

Mangoeater1000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This sock-puppetry started when Mangoeater1000 was unblocked and free to edit. I was editing through Mambo420 and was receiving barnstars from administrators. I only had three accounts till then and I was using only one account(Mambo420) to edit. Unlike all other socks, I am not a vandal, I am extremely collaborative and constructive. I work hard to improve Wikipedia. Please understand my situation and forgive me once. I beg your pardon.--Mangoeater1000 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please come back after at least 6 months without socking, then we could discuss your unblocking. Max Semenik (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) If you're serious about getting unblocked, I would also request that you apologize for edits such as this one (which you made twice) and for the faux-incompetent rudeness you engaged in as Rrodic (talk · contribs). Your sockpuppetry was far more elaborate than you make it out to be (with numerous elaborate personas created, and rigorously defended right up to the point of CheckUser intervention), and you owe MaxSem an apology for lying about all this in your unblock request. Quite a few people have called me dirty words on here for being gay, and some of them have requested that they be unblocked after admins stepped in; to date, no one who's ever harassed me has been unblocked, and if you want to be the first, I'd suggest you start by owning up to everything you've done. (And I've only been following this case for a few days now, so I'm sure there's a whole lot more that I don't know about.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am not here for vandalism. I called you a homo because you announced on your user page that you are one. It's like calling a human, a human. I am a straight and I will not get offended if you call me a straight man. I support gay rights. I will never ever try to stop the rights of others. I want gays and lesbians to have the same rights as everybody else, including the right to get married. I have many friends who are gay and lesbian and they are all very nice people. I hate it that they are not considered people of our society, like everybody else. If you still think that I owe you an apology, I am more than willing to apologize.--Mangoeater1000 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry -Pablo-

I couldn't care less about the words you call me (though if your gay friends haven't taught you that "homo" is an inappropriate word to use, then you really don't know much about gay rights). This isn't about that simple act, it's about the pattern of disruptive editing of which it was a part. You keep on trying to write that off. Your above response is what I'd expect of an editor who had called me a "homo" as part of a conversation or something; you wrote an all-caps accusation against me, for which your talk page access was revoked. I'm asking you to acknowledge that you were in fact a disruptive user. If you can't do this, then I'll oppose any future unblock requests, even if you fulfill the requirements of the standard offer. If you're willing to turn around and become a constructive user, then I'll leave that matter to the users with whom you've had content disputes, to settle six months down the road. However, you're not doing yourself any favors by pretending that your sockpuppetry was "collaborative and constructive." It was disruptive, plain and simple, and all I ask is that you acknowledge this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Alas, it seems that you are too angry. We're all humans here and we all make mistakes. My mistakes are so few compared to the amount of constructive edits I made. Once upon a time, a few mistakes ago, I used to be an awarding-winning unblocked editor. I don't know why I am even discussing this with you, you are clearly not an administrator. Any way, since you are on my talk page, have a cup of tea with me to ease the tension. For now let's just have --Mangoeater1000 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine an unblock request that would work at this time considering the duplicity you have employed. I don't see any reason you should be trolling editors on this page either, so I have disabled you access to post here. Kuru (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Bailmoney27 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 72Dino (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Site ban from community

Per this discussion you are banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. HighInBC 20:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Haven't heard from you in a while, and I forgot the last talk page. Ping me if you like. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait...Psychonot? Come on... Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)