User talk:OmgWeegeetime

Welcome!

Hello, OmgWeegeetime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ban Ki-moon has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean articles

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please stop the disruptive editing you have done on multiple pages. Ogress _smash! 03:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LindsayH. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Kim Jong-il without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It is better to leave in the official name of the country ~ sure it's not democratic, and nothing to do with the People, but it is the place's name. It was already piped to North Korea, so your edit had the effect of removing information to no purpose. Thank you, Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though you're on a campaign to change references to "South Korea" to "Republic of Korea", and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" to "North Korea". This suggests you are trying to push a particular personal analysis or opinion into articles. Please stop doing this, as it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Regardless what you may personally think about the governments in control of the two halves of the Korean peninsula, we cannot apply double standards to them in our encyclopedia. Psychonaut (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by changing articles according to your own personal analysis. Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WP:ANI, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have extended your block to indefinite based on this. You may appeal using the instructions above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Park Geun-hye, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You continue to engage in nationalistic editing. While you are under a block, please consider your behavior as you could be a valuable editor. Perhaps you should edit areas outside of the Koreas for the time being. Ogress _smash! 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My cousin has been on my Wikipedia account lately, and has been editing pages relentlessly. Please, that OmgWeegeetime was not me. Please unblock me so that I can make USEFUL edits. OmgWeegeetime (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are not in control of your account's security, we cannot unblock it, no matter what else may or may not explain the account's behavior. Please note that since you have been blocked for reasons other than your account being compromised, the option to create a new account and resume editing does not apply to you unless and until you can adequately explain both your editing behavior and how you plan to secure any new account. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I think I have learned my lesson now. It just bothered me when "North Korea" was changed to "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea" changed to "South Korea". Now, I know what is right and wrong. Please unblock me, there is still some typos that I want to fix. If you DO unblock me, then I will be willing to make Wikipedia a much happier place for people to edit and display information. Please unblock me.OmgWeegeetime (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have specifically stated, above, that you are not, or have not been in charge of your account. It is therefore compromised, and cannot be unblocked.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:36, 24 August 2015 (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.

Comment: I don't think you have proven your ability to properly deal with issues that bother you. I'm not convinced that if something else were to bother you, you were capable of taking the correct course of action instead of resorting to edit warring and ban evasion, like you have so far. It has taken a great deal of effort from editors and administrators to make you learn your lesson - and we can't make such an unreasonable effort every time you need to learn something. I don't believe it's possible to alter user rights so as to enable you to make uncontroversial typo fix edits only. (Ps. I'm not an admin. I'm an involved editor who has reverted some edits of user OmgWeegeetime.) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Finnusertop: Also we have discovered they are a sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:OmgWeegeetime), so... there's also that. Ogress _smash! 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said ban evasion but apparently the socks were there before, although I think the checkuser hasn't been concluded yet. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

`{{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).

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

Request reason:

Aha! YOU don't think that I have learned my lesson, but I am SURE that I understand everything that the administrators told me. If this is not enough to convince you, than I don't know what is. Please, I have thought about this for a long time, and I think that I am ready to unblocked. Give me one more chance. And no, Badguyfallsinpoop and Mychicken7777 are not my so called "sock puppets". They are other random people that I don't know, and the term "sock puppet master" is just offensive. Don't call me that. Please unblock me. OmgWeegeetime (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser tool indicates that you are Technically indistinguishable from Badguyfallsinpoop and Mychicken4444. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2015 (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.

Multiple unblock requests

{{unblock}} {{unblock}} {{unblock}} {{unblock}} {{unblock}} {{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).

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

Request reason:

What if I promise NOT to "sock puppet" any other accounts anymore? Please just unblock me already. I'm getting tired of apologizing again and again and keep getting declined and rejected. You probably don't have faith in me, but I am sure that I won't do any of this ever again. OmgWeegeetime (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Between your numerous unblock requests that fail to adequately demonstrate a difference in behavior and the confirmed checkuser evidence, you've clearly not demonstrated your awareness and agreement with our policies and guidelines. Additional unblock requests have been disabled for this page for the next two weeks. If you wish to return then, I suggest you demonstrate your knowledge of why this happened and why, should you be unblocked, we can feel confident that it will not simply continue again. --slakr^\ talk / 23:08, 24 August 2015 (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.

Comment Aside from the half-dozen other reasons, you have specifically stated that your account is compromised, and therefore it cannot be unblocked. Ogress _smash! 22:15, 24 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

It has been two weeks now since my block. I'm sure that from now on, I promise to never vandalize any article of some sort anymore. I have waited 2 weeks to apologize to you. Please, give me the chance to edit and not vandalize articles. I will only make edits if necessary. I will not express my political views on Korean-related articles anymore, promise. Please unblock me so I can make Wikipedia a better place.

Decline reason:

Unblock declined. Abusive requests removed and talk page access revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 9 September 2015 (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.

Comment Aside from the half-dozen other reasons, you have specifically stated that your account is compromised, and therefore it cannot be unblocked. Ogress _smash! Ogress 21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]