User talk:Prestigiouzman
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Farewell for now my Affiliates
[edit]Closed Path
[edit]I thought that my voyage had come to its end
at the last limit of my power,---that the path before me was closed,
that provisions were exhausted
and the time come to take shelter in a silent obscurity.
But I find that thy will knows no end in me.
And when old words die out on the tongue,
new melodies break forth from the heart;
and where the old tracks are lost,
new country is revealed with its wonders.
--Prestigiouzman (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sock Puppet Investigation
[edit]I have opened an investigation over your apparently editing while not signed in order to dodge the block on your account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prestigiouzman. Agricolae (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prestigiouzman, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Fiddle Faddle 12:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Prestigiouzman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello my friend, it looks like I'm having some more hassle from people claiming some of my page creations are hoaxes without anything to back up their claims and whereas my created pages are fully referenced, i think we should all just move on with the knowledge that i am attempting to make positive contributions to wiki, the reason for my blocking was maybe a slip up on my behalf for being called childish, but i have never abused anybody and i have never made personal attacks against anyone,the only crime i seem to be committing is sockpuppitry,i understand why i was last blocked and i have learned my lesson, i am still learning how to use wiki and i have decided to give it another chance, so can you please give me another chance,and i would like to say sorry to Dougweller also,we seem to have got off on the wrong foot---Prestigiouzman (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Creating and using multiple sockpuppets - some even after the start of the SPI - is a clear signal that you do not intend to contribute to this encyclopedia constructively. m.o.p 20:07, 12 October 2013 (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.
Prestigiouzman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you unblock me and monitor me along with the others who will undoubtedly do so and i give reason for my account to be blocked again i will not ask for more leniency as i would be undeserving of anymore, but i feel my contributions are of a positive nature,i think that i got off on the wrong foot and i developed a bad impression of most administrators so i didn't take the policies quite so seriously, but then i came across users like DMacks and Tim Trent and i started to get a better impression but i suppose my lack of caring for policies continued on a bit,i got a bit overly frustrated with user DougWeller and Nicknack but i can see that these people are also just following procedure ,i am very new to wiki and i have learned lots in the last few months, can you please give me one more chance, i promise i will do my best in keeping with the rules from now on--Prestigiouzman (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have been editing in the same way for at least three months, and nothing I see in the editing history of any of your accounts suggests to me that you are likely to change. Indeed, what I have seen leads me to have considerable doubts whether you would be able to improve even if you wanted to, as you seem to be completely incapable of seeing what is wrong with your edits, and you appear to have no understanding at all of the difference between a reliable source and fringe speculation. However, quite apart from that, there is no question of unblocking this account, as any request for an unblock should be on the talk page of your original account. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2013 (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.
- We have no reason to believe you. You created a sock and then used it to lie that it wasn't a sock. You also created Grapetreader (talk · contribs). Why in the world would anyone believe you? Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not directly say that these Usernames were not mine in any of my edits but i may have been misleading in verifying that they were mine, so i did not tell a lie, but i think you can see yourself that i am trying my best to meet the criteria asked of me and i feel i'm doing well in this crash course as i have relative little knowledge of I.T,but i feel compelled to use this medium until i feel otherwise and i don't want to create more socks because i know its against policy and i feel that you and other users i have recently been acquainted with are better than the first crowd i came into contact with,i can see that you are trying to guide me also from your edit at Eridu talk page and i would like my edits to be able to stand up to scrutiny so i think its a blessing to have yous around in a way--Prestigiouzman (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This behaviour is that of the barack room lawyer. I see no indication of any description that this editor will ever become a useful collegiate editor. It interests me that I am one of the first crowd he came into contact with and was praised by him, and am now discarded. It appears that this editor indulges in whatever behaviour will, at the time, be useful to him to seek to continue his ploughing of his lone furrow of disruptive editing. My recommendation is to leave the block in place. The time taken to removing the ordure he places here is disproportionately great compared with any beneficial edits.
- I tried hard to guide and lead him in his early days here, but it was a relief when he was blocked. It hardly surprised me at all that sockpuppets arrived, nor will their future arrival surprise me. I oppose any unblock, though appreciate that this is not a ballot. Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think this way, in life i don't really talk much except when i think the conversation is funny ,otherwise i don't engage in conversation unless i am trying to find out something, sometimes i say to myself,jesus christ,what am i reading this for,its not funny, i have tried to talk to you and others but it seems like yous are a different kind of people so i seen no use in talking anymore,but then i was continually drawn into conversations which were not funny no matter how much light i tried to bring to them so i started answering questions in the way that would stop people from drawing me into conversations, all i am trying to do is put forward what i have learned and show people this by linking everything up so it becomes clear , you know that i stick to certain fields and i don't feel i am rampaging around in a destructive manner and i cant see how giving me one more chance is going to do any harm, i am not just saying whatever i think it will take, i am trying to give myself a reason to keep using computers, one half of me actually wants my request to be declined because it is taking my concentration away from where it should be,but another half of me wants to continue on using computers for the time being anyway--Prestigiouzman (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Accounts deletion request verification--Prestigiouzman (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Prestigiouzman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have taken some time off and i would like to come back to the table if you will let me--Prestigiouzman (talk) 2:39 am, Today (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
It's going to take a hell of a lot more than, "hey, can I come back now?" to convince anyone to unblock you. Wait six months, and then perhaps the standard offer might be on the table; until then, you aren't coming back to it. Yunshui 雲水 08:11, 27 November 2013 (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.
Jaysus--Prestigiouzman (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing to engage in sock-puppetry (User:Prograceman) is a perfect guarantee that you will never ever be allowed back, and makes everyone less likely to trust you in the future if you claim you are ready to follow the rules. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)