User talk:Scarletspeedster7

Image on your userpage

Hi, you're not allowed to use fair use images on your userpage, so please stop reverting BJBot. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review #1

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will in the future handle things with civility and honesty.

Decline reason:

If you despise Wikipedia, then this isn't the place for you. It is a collaborative effort, so if you can't work with other people it gets very hard. You were given several warnings (including by myself) that if you carried on making inappropriate comments you would be blocked. Then was your chance to prove that you wanted another chance, but you carried on. You got blocked, you are staying blocked as far as I am concerned. – B.hotep •talk• 07:47, 1 July 2009 (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.

Review #2

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In regards to my pervious actions, I have felt snubbed and not given any actual feedback as to what I did wrong in the first place. however, undertand that my comments were very negative and therefore insulting and rude. I shall not stoop to that level again, even when others refuse to aid newer users by explaining their actions. I honestly and sincerely will do my best. Oh, and I won't add a picture on my page, even though many other people have pictures... hopefully someone will eventually explain the difference.

Decline reason:

You were told very clearly from the outset what you were doing was wrong, and yet you still chose to attack other editors for enforcing what is a non-negotiable policy. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:19, 1 July 2009 (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.

Please excuse me for "butting in" but even when in a dispute, that doesn't mean you lose your control. Maintain a civil attitude. Comments like this [1] make me disturbed and make us more unlikely to unblock you. Saying you "despise wikipedians" is another reason to keep you blocked. You cannot expect to continue editing here with an immature and hot-temper; we appreciate those who have patience and are willing to take criticism. I for one make mistakes sometimes and I thank users that correct me. That's how you grow in life, that's how you grow as a wikipedia editor. Hope you turn over and are able to contribute with a more light-hearted spirit. Blessings and Peace, Schnitzel MannGreek. 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate what you said. You're right. I shouldn't have such a hot temper. However, do you see where I am coming from? No one gives anyone the time of day to explain anything. That's just wrong. There should be something said for compassion. However, I see where I am in the wrong. In the future, I will dispute things with a much more civil tone. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I like to see. Thanks, If I were an administrator, I would unblock you. However, if you could tell that in your unblock request, you might have a chance. I'll try to supprt you and Assumme Good Faith;) Blessings, Schnitzel MannGreek. 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need you to show clearly to the other users that you are truely willing to edit constructively. They have suspicion and I don't blame them. But I am trusting you. Leave your reply under this. I will be your mentor and keep a watch over you in case you need help. And I will make sure you don't revert back to former ways. Regards, Schnitzel MannGreek. 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review #3

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I truly understand my actions. Remember they all occurred within the span of 15 minutes. I have had to reflect on ym actions since yesterday. In those 15 minutes I really was just angry at people for being abrupt with me. Now I understand. I would really appreciate if someone would actualyl consider the situation. I have in the past made several positive constructive additions to Wikipedia. This situation concerns primarily my user and talk pages, and if that is a problem, I will gladly cease adding to those pages.

Decline reason:

No. I cannot take this request seriously until you have had appropriate time to reflect on your actions. Immediately requesting an unblock after you were (rightfully) blocked does not fill me with confidence in that regard. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (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.

Review #4

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked yesterday. I have had time to reflect and believe that I understand what was wrong. first of all, I made rude and insulting comments. I won't do that again. Secondly, this is my first offense and I have been blovked indefinitely. That seems excessive. People who repeatedly vandalize only get week-long blocks. It seems to me that if I am to be blocked, I could at least receive a lesser sentence. I do make positive contributions. THis is one isolated incident that I will avoid by not editing my usesr page any more. I think that this explanation is rationial, logical, and honest. Thanks you. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So far, you've vandalized multiple articles, insulted people, broken our image use policy, responded with more attacks when these matters were discussed with you, and have now hounded us to be unblocked. I think you are just saying what you think we want to hear, I don't believe you. I see you have made some positive contributions, so I think if you come back in some serious amount of time, not 1 day, maybe this can be considered. But not now, your behavior is too serious to remove the block this early. Try again in 2 weeks. Mango juice^talk 16:50, 1 July 2009 (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.

Schnitze Mann Greek, is there anything else I can do? I feel pretty much sandbagged at every turn. I have not vandalized any articles. All information I have posted has been accompanied with a source. I find it insulting that they would assume I'm just saying what you want to hear. I am saying simply what I mean. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To all other users: unless you have any helpful and politely written suggestions to help me, then just please refrain from posting here, as I will most likely just remove it. Thank you. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review #5

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I have been told to watit two weeks. However, I just want ot bring this to an admin's attention. An indefinite block is defined as this: An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion." I do not believe that my disruption, while yes it was inappropriate and very much irresposnsible, does not constitute this sort of major breach. I did not vandalize public pages with explicit or inappropriate material. I did of course write rude and deameaning messages, but I believe that an essential ban from Wikipedia is too harsh a sentence for the crime. A crime, of course, that I believe is very wrong and am sorry for. All I am pointing out right now is that an indefinite block seems to be an overkill gesture designed to punish rather than to teach. Instead of a means to an end, it ultimately becomes an end in itself. As I recognize my crime and feel appropriately bad about it. Of course, I am unable to apologize to these users since I am blocked from anything but my own talk page. Thanks for your time.

Decline reason:

Not a chance. Too many abusive sockpuppets (I just found some more.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:13, 18 July 2009 (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.

Most people think that having three independent editors review your request is sufficient; you have had four independent reviews. In order to avoid using excess time as more admins are pulled to this talk page, I've protected this talk page for two weeks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's amend that. This is a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Scarletspeed7, who, just after this page was locked down, requested unblocking to edit the same kinds of articles, and claiming that he hadn't edited in a long time. I no longer think it is a remotely good idea to unblock this user in a couple of weeks. Mango juice^talk 03:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've fixed your unblock template. Remember, 2 brackets are used for every template. And I'll support you for your unblock request because you seem like that you want to change and edit in good faith. Pink girl 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we consider unblock you will have to convince us that you are not the same editor as Scarletspeed7. If you are this editor then on this page you are a block-evading sockpuppet, and an idefinite block is wholly appropriate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling the absolute truth that I'm not Scarletspeedster7's sockpuppet. Pink girl 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is really interesting and thought-provoking, Pinkgirl, that you should answer my last post, which was clearly addressed to Scarletspeedster7, using this account name. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review #6

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to suggest that sufficient time has passed and I feel extremely sorry for what has transpired. The picture situation was borderline at best and the ensuing comments I made were rude. I was told that if I waited a while and then attempted to reapply for an unblock, that would be acceptable so long as I did not abuse the unblock thing. Yes, I made a "sockpuppet", but they sole intent of this sockpuppet is to reapply for a block of the previously mentioned 2 weeks transpired. I will not be usinig it for any other purpose other than reapplying after completing any prerequisites given by any of you. Feel free to monitor it instead of blockin git, and you will see that I will not use it to abuse anything; I will not edit anything or than this page when appropriate. I will not bombard you all with requests for unblocks, but do anything listed by an admin and then come back to reapply. Actually, it has been 1 month and not merely 2 weeks, which should show my commitment to adding constructive things, as my history page will show. I have made probably twenty-five distinct edits over my month as a member before "the incident". I feel that I have been punished for a sufficient amount of time, and I am ready to return and follow the rules.

Decline reason:

The fact that you made this unblock request with a sockpuppet shows that you either have no intention of shaping up or no grasp of Wikipedia rules. Smashville^talk 20:36, 22 July 2009 (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.

Why did JohnELocke (talk · contribs) make this unblock request? Scarletspeedster7 (talk · contribs) still has access to his/her talk page to make unblock requests him/herself. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why did JohnELocke do this? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the unblock request, I used this other profile because I was blocked from making edits to even my talk page. At least, it says that I cannot edit from that page. JohnELocke (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The block log would say "cannot edit own talk page." Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. It wouldn't let me a few minutes ago. Thanks for the heads up. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review #7

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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't make another unblock again today, I just want to point out to the person before me that I could NOT edit my talk page from this profile for some reason, like I stated in my unblock request. That is why I blatantly said that I created a sockpuppet. Then, as if by magic, my talk page could be edited. I do grasp how to utilize Wikipedia positively. It is strange that I haven't even been given at least a conversation before being declined ever. I made one string of mistakes and instead of even jsut getting a temporary block for a month or something, I received an indefinite black and was completely dismissed every time I petitioned. Regardless, I truly understand my error. If you go back before the "picture/comment" disaster and lok at my edits, you can see that I understand how to positively edit. Now, that the sockpuppet hsa been explained, I feel that hopefully this block will receive actual consideration.

Decline reason:

As jpgordon in a previous decline said "Not a chance" – you haven't learned a lesson because you are still creating socks. – B.hotep •talk• 20:50, 22 July 2009 (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.

Now, I am a little annoyed by this decline. I told you already why the sock was necessary. i could not edit my talk page, and I had waited the alloted amount of time and wished to make an unblock request like before. Does anyone actually consider this requests seriously? Does it strike you as odd that someone would keep trying to get unblocked over and over if they didn't want to help? The sockpuppet has been explained. It was a desperate measure. Why doesn't anyone ever help someone else? Does anyone even consider the new words put up on this page? Please someone seriously help me out here! I'm dyin over here! Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We see four editors trying to get you unblocked; Scarletspeed7, Scarletspeedster7, Pinkgirl and JohnELocke. You should understand that creating a sock to bypass a block is in itself a blockable procedure. How many of these users are in fact yourself? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Scarletspeedster7 is me. Scarletspeed7 was mine a long time ago, but I had forgotten the password. JohnELocke, as stated above, was created because for some reason, it wouldn't allow me to edit my page. That was created for that reason only as stated previously and publicly. It was a borderline tactic, but I felt necessary to make my unblock request and was confident that as I was openly stating that was a sockpuppet, people would be somewhat more forgiving. Pinkgirl is not me. I have no idea who that is. Please feel free to ask any other questions you feel need adressing. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JohnELocke was created yesterday. You did not openly declare it as a sockpuppet. It was only revealed by a vigilant editor who noticed you forging signatures and requesting unblocks in "other people's" names. – B.hotep •talk• 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And seven block reviews is not taking it seriously? Come on... – B.hotep •talk• 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have not read all of the material. WHen someone pointed out the weird edit hiccup, I fixed it. I also stated point blank in the unblock request (read it, you will see it plain as day) that that was a sockpuppet created to make an edit. It says so right there. Yes, I created yesterday, I didn't have time to make the unblock request, so I did it today. I still stated it right out front. Just because I chose to leave work at the proper time and not make the edit I was going to make yesterday today, doesn't mean I am some sort of ill-conceived vandal. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you want to talk about NOT taking it seriously? I obviously am! I want to be unblocked! What else can I do? I have no other options! I want to be unblocked and help edit! The only way to do that? Be unblocked! I made two unblock requests in the last 20 days, one of which was simply an addendum adressing something brought up inthe previous unblock request. Look at yourself! Do you think that you're giving me a chance? I have been asking for a chance for a long long time. I have been trying to get this darn thing unblocked and go back to the way things are supposed to be, sans the rude edits I made and the picture thing I did. That's all I want. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I had just contacted the admin who blocked you to suggest a review, and found you continuing to edit through your sock on matters wholly unrelated to your block. I do not think that I personally would ever consider an unblock in this situation. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for that budding support of me. You can't make me give up. If I can't edit, then what choice do I have? I want to be a part of the editing that I was in the past. Eevryone's so focused on the smallest of details, and I just wish people could recognize the effort here in trying to repair an error. No matter how many people continue to beat me down, it will not discourage me. I'll be here every day, defending my position, hoping for the chance to at least receive some sort of probationary allowances. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides JohnELocke, this person has created User:BoosterBoosterBoosterGold, User:WallyWest3 and User:DavisLove3. Today. Not a while ago. Today. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not me. This is a shared IP. A company IP. I do not know who those are. Scarletspeedster7 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've admitted you're JohnELocke, and those other accounts were created within a minute of JohnELocke's first edit to this page, so, basically, you're nailed. That will be all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those three accounts were created at 20.07, 20.08 and 20.09 today. You are lying. Go away. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:38, 22 July 2009 (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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been over two months when I have made my previous unblock request, so I hope everyone can take me seriously now. I seriously want to edit constructively now and I promise I'll never cause any more disruption. I know this is a sockpuppet account making an unblock request, but this is the only way to edit this talk page to prove to you that I'll edit in good faith from now on.

Decline reason:

Too many chances; too much abuse. Sorry, I simply can't trust you. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (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 request appears to have been made by ScienceGolfFanatic, pretending to be a sock of Scarlet. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:55, 14 November 2009 (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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been months since I last made a request ot be unblocked. Yes, this account's user fell victim to edit warring and sockpuppetry. However, as a amturing individual, I would like a chance to finally be productive. Now, I know that someone is going ot point at the creation of a new account and say, 'sockpuppetry! He hasn't learned!" I believe I have learned. There is just no medium for me to voice this petition in any other way. This is the only way to request unblock. It has been almost half a year since my last request (ignoring the one made by ScienceGoldFanatic). This should show the true scope of desire I have to edit. I promise to only make factual, unbiased (or as close to unbiased as possible) edits involving upcoming movies, shows, and comics. If an edit of mine is reverted I promise to not act upon it in any way or become belligerent. Please seriously consider my request with an open mind and an open heart. I greatly desire the chance to be an effective editor.

Decline reason:

I appreciate your candor over this issue, but at this point in the situation, it is definately inappropriate to create ANOTHER new account to request this unblock. Your best recourse is to apply for reinstatement by direct appeal to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Instructions for doing so are located at WP:ARBCOM, under the heading "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". Jayron32 06:44, 18 December 2009 (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.

The above edit was made by this account, not the IP address, which is a shared IP by over 3000 people (University of Oklahoma). Blacklantern2814 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) In an interest for full disclosure, this user is also one of my former sockpuppets. User:Ashtongotpunkd Hopefully this will be seen as an act of good faith. Blacklantern2814 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be an all-knowing Wikipedian, but I do realize that you can't make anything better by making another sockpuppet (this I know, since the only two edits that it made is to this page) to make yourself look good. I very highly doubt that you will be granted an unblock, even if you wait a year.--Iner22 (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (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).

Scarletspeedster7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to make a request again for unblocking. I ralze that the posts I made over a year ago were wrong and uncalled-for. I will endeavor to make proper posts in the future. I also will not make sockpuppets in the future.

Decline reason:

Happy anniversary it appears. You were advised to go to WP:ARBCOM under "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". Now might just be successful (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 30 June 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.

Thank you. I will try this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.44.82 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]