Cheating in chess and the Three-revert Rule

You should stop your reverts in the cheating in chess article as you are violating the three-revert rule. This will get you blocked from editing. Engage in more discussion at Talk:cheating in chess if you want to change the article. Quale (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, use of sockpuppets can also get you blocked. Take care when you edit without logging in to avoid socking. This can also get you blocked from editing. Quale (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please build consensus

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop to change Cheating in chess until you build a consensus on the Talk page so that you are sure most people agree with your opinion. Thanks ! SyG (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Consensus is not truth! Wikipedia is not democracy! --Resource based economy (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit-warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Cheating in chess. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:08, 9 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

According to WP:IAR you can ignore rules when it is required to improve Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Not that rule (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (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.

Block reset

Due to your clear block evasion, I have reset your block and extended it to 3 days. Do it again, and don't bother returning to WP. –MuZemike 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do your checks again, dude. I have NOT evaded the block! --Resource based economy (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What article(s) do you think I've been editing while blocked? Can you link the change(s) you think I've made? It's possible that Im sharing IP addresses, with other people on the network I'm on. You might also confuse me with others in the same IP range. I really dont think I'm the only person with an 158.xx.xxx.xxx address. --Resource based economy (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threats will never make me change behavior, so you can cut it out. I consider them an illegitimate source of power. --Resource based economy (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Read what i wrote right above this box, and give me an answer.

Decline reason:

You have edited Cheating in chess as 158.36.232.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) during the block on your registered account. This is known as block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2010 (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.

No, that's not right. Just check Cheating in chess' log. No edits by me since I was banned. I did the opposite, however, I edited with this account while the IP was banned May 8. A 3 day ban is way too harsh, at least shorten it to 24 h. You're chasing the player now, not the ball. Also, I can ensure you that from now on I will stop blanking the touch-move rule section of the article. --Resource based economy (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not going to blank the touch-move section of the Cheating in chess article any more, as I realize it will only continue to get me banned again and again. And I can't do other improvements while banned.

Decline reason:

You just admitted block evasion, regardless of in what direction you did it. As far as "chasing the player" is concerned, Wikipedia isn't a game. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:55, 10 May 2010 (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.

Blatantly gaming the system by transparently using an IP to dodge WP:3RR (violating it multiple times in the process) has raised major questions about whether you can be trusted to make "other improvements" at all. Could you perhaps state what other improvements you had in mind, please? - Vianello (Talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used an IP address to dodge a ban!!! Read what I wrote again! These are the contributions that I had in mind:

Add a screenshot of an Internet Chess Club cheater's computer to cheating in chess.
Put an NPOV template on the article and remove the reference to the touch-move rule in the first section of the article.
Add information to the software section of Internet Chess Club.
Give resource based economy it's own article and add information to it. Resource based economy wasn't a new idea with The Venus Project, and the term is used a lot without refering to Jacque Fresco's ideas.

And others as I find other articles that need improvements. --Resource based economy (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never accused you of using an IP address to dodge a block. Read what I wrote again. You went to the cusp of 3RR, then switched to an IP to go over that brink (multiple times). Anyway, thanks very much for sharing your plans. That should give folks a much better idea of what you'd like to get done. I'd personally like to hear some opinions on that besides my own, though. - Vianello (Talk) 20:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm sorry about my reading slip. --Resource based economy (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticize WP:CVU's militaristic way of presenting itself.
Discuss the touch-move rule further on cheating in chess's talk page. --Resource based economy (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You just admitted block evasion, regardless of in what direction you did it. As far as "chasing the player" is concerned, Wikipedia isn't a game."

I consider that a very poor and evasive response to the reasons for an unblock that I provided. --Resource based economy (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean't with "chasing the player, not the ball" is that you fight the editor and not the edits. --Resource based economy (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocking is not concidered acceptable to use as punishment, but to prevent damage to the project. That is also what the blocking policy states. I don't think the last person that denied my unblock request was aware of this, because I made it believable to you that I will not continue doing what you consider "uncontributive edits" (blanking of the touch-move rule section from the cheating in chess in specific).

Decline reason:

Given your edit history thus far, I am not convinced that you will follow all of the rules in future. However, I will be delighted to be wrong- when your block expires, you will have the opportunity to prove that you are henceforth going to work through discussion and consensus with other users. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 May 2010 (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.

RE: Consensus is not truth! Wikipedia is not democracy!

You are absolutely correct in this assessment. Wikipedia does not present truths; it presents facts. And it is most certainly NOT a democracy. If either of those two points bother you, you should consider using a different website for your agenda. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please build consensus (again)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. SyG (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done now? --Resource based economy (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make edit to templates such as Template:User CVU5-en then please suggest changes on the talk pages and build consensus. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. To avoid being blocked please get consensus for the edits that you are making on the CVU templates. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clicky please

That screenshot is made by ME! I am the cheater, William. If I accuse myself of cheating, I can hereby confirm that I do so. --Resource based economy (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Juks7.png

Thank you for uploading File:Juks7.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who took the screenshot, so I'm the owner. I don't want to claim any rights on it though. Anybody can use it as they please, for whatever purpose, without my permission. I stated this in the file description. I can't do any further edits except for on my talk page since I'm banned. Also, can you revert the last edit on cheating in chess so the image has a purpose? I'm not accusing anyone of cheating, since it was me, playing white, that cheated. --Resource based economy (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a derivative work of Microsoft Windows, meaning it is copyrighted with Microsoft, not the person who took the screenshot. It will either have to be kept and used under fair use, meaning it will have to comply with the WP:NFCC, or deleted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jimmy Wales. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimbowales.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jimbowales.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't for lulz and vandalism. Your account is permanently blocked. Please go find something constructive to do with your time besides attemtpting to disrupt and damage a volunteer project. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]