User talk:Sebastian80

GA

You're welcome. I hope you'll look at the King cobra article next. I think that would make a nice addition to GA. LittleJerry (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Sebastian80 for helping to promote Black mamba to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temazepam

The ref is outdated and I am in a position to say so. See WP:MEDRS. Please source to recent review articles and textbooks. Recent means last 5 years approx. and 1978 is really outdated the stuff was new then. The article needs current sources. It already says that it is a sleeping pill=hypnotic elsewhere. 70.137.147.121 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your deduction from the rapid rise of blood levels is a synthesis, WP:SYN. We take the indications from the FDA approved indications per FDA label. For the indications in UK we take the repective labeling in the national drug list, etc. Please do not allow yourself to denunciate me again as a suspected sockpuppet. I have variable IP and this is not controlled by me but by the provider. I am playing strictly to the rules, as you will notice. 70.137.129.225 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naja nigricollis

I've started to review this. Let me know how quickly you can fix the main problems or I'll put it on hold. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking better, maybe a small section on reproduction - mating season, number of eggs, gestation, etc?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, rhey have to be sure on that stuff. try to find a legit pic, it's better if the owner uploads the file, I had a few of my Cyclura pieces taken care of that way. I did manage to get Ctenosaura bakeri to pass GA with no pics at all though..maybe get a map of its range together?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are almost there. Maybe contact people who have the snakes on some of the venomous forums to donate a pic or two? We'll see how it goes. Pictures aren't vital to a GA, but they would be nice to have.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few good external links to round it out. We'll see what develops picturewise by the weekend.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be perfect. Links to any zoos, serpentariums, venom banks, a good YT video can't hurt. Good luck on the pics.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawn

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Tiger article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mamba

User:TCO has an interest in reptiles, you might want to ask him for help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bothrops asper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Sprache

Nun, wenn Sie auf einmal so gute Deutschkenntnisse haben, seit unserer letzten Konversation, dann koennen Sie jetzt ja auch den kurzen Abriss des Faschismus von Sternhell lesen, den ich Ihnen auf Deutsch gelinkt habe, da ich keine engl. Ausgabe fand. Letztes mal konnten wir das nicht diskutieren, da Sie noch nicht Deutsch sprachen. Sie lernen aber schnell! Dann ist Ihnen jetzt ja auch Material im Urtext zugaenglich, aus dem Sie verifizieren koennen, dass Himmler ein wildgewordener Huehnerzuechter war, und nicht ein hochgebildeter Intellektueller, wie Sie vermeinten und beharrten. Man kann wohl einem Nicht-Deutschen nicht vermitteln, welchen Geruch dieser Mann fuer deutsche Intellektuelle an sich hatte. Lesen Sie mit Ihren frischen Deutschkenntnissen auch dies:

Schoepsoglobin - http://literaturnetz.org/6171

Das wird den Standpunkt der damaligen Intellektuellen klarer machen. 70.137.149.32 (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naja nigricollis

Passed. Congrats. Keep looking for pics though, and take the time to review another GAN!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Monocled Cobra a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Monocled cobra. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Equatorial spitting cobra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hello Sebastian. Thanks for your work reviewing GAs. However, there are a few things I need to point out. First is Black Mamba, where you find significant rewriting esp. of the lead after you passed it--honestly, I would not have passed a GA nomination containing sentences in the lead like "It is a notorious snake that's feared throughout the world." Second, I saw some issues in Capybara (these may occur in the Mamba article also; I haven't checked that carefully): there are two citation formats, inconsistencies in date formatting, incorrect/incomplete/untemplated citations, too many notes in the lead (well, there were--I removed them), an inappropriate External link, and a couple of references (some to zoo websites, for instance) that really aren't of the quality we'd like to see in a GA (I removed one of them). Please see my recent edits to the article and the note on the talk page. Your response is appreciated. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you participated in a discussion of these Mamba matters on the talk page, and I hope you take Sandy's final comments to heart. She is one of the top editors on the project. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have nothing to say? Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson's mamba distribution map

Hi Sebastian! A month or so back you made a request at the map workshop that went unanswered. I can see that you managed to get a map done, but it looks like it doesn't quite match the request or the source information. If you want to still have the original request done, I'll be glad to take it on. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 02:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added your reply below to keep the conversation in one place. You can reply here as I'll be keeping an eye on the discussion. -- Orionist ★ talk

Hey, thanks for the reply. I did make a request, but after waiting for so long I decided that I'd go ahead and do it by myself. Is mine not good? Well if you can do a better one, then by all means go ahead. However, the general distribution of this species in my map is quite accurate. If you are going to make another map, please use my map as a source for the species' distribution. Thanks. I think I need a better map for Naja atra, actually. That species is found in Taiwan, southern China, northern Laos, and northern Vietnam. It's also found in Hainan province in China. Bastian (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! The main issue I found with your map was that the distribution goes along the exact national boundaries of several countries, which is highly unlikely and doesn't match the text of your request nor the sources you provided. I assumed you were using a simple graphics software that didn't have the capabilities to do what you needed it to do. You can list here the sources for the mamba and the Naja atra map and I'll be glad to do them for you. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on the maps then! And sure, you can rely on me for future maps. If you find me inactive at the time of a future request, you can try the Illustration workshop instead, as the Map workshop has been very slow of late. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 13:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, Orionist. I really do appreciate it. Can you give me the link to the Illustration worshop, please? So basically, if I need a map done in the future and you're inactive then I should just post the request in the "Illustration workshop" instead of the "Map workshop"? Bastian (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The illustration workshop is at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop or in short form WP:GL/I. You can also find links to Illustration Workshop and the Photography workshop at the top of the Map workshop page, and vice versa. I'll upload the finished map on Thursday, soon after the Blackout ends. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 19:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

renaming

Yeah, I'm one of the hold-outs on common names, probably because when I hear them used incorrectly it makes me want to choke people out, I'll support you on the others, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Sebastian80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

76.71.38.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "VeronicaPR". The reason given for VeronicaPR's block is: "long-standing insidious vandalism and abuse of multiple accounts".

Blocking administrator: Fvasconcellos (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: In the course of checking the relevant history in order to assess your unblock request, I came upon more and more evidence that you and VeronicaPR are one and the same. Therefore, far from lifting the autoblock, I am blocking this account. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ I login from different computers, usually public ones and I am a victim of this persons block. Look at my record, I have started many pages on Wikipedia and I have contributed in good faith in a lot of articles. I have helped a promote a couple of articles to Good Article status. I hope I don't become a victim of this persons block. The guy that blocked this "VeronicaPR" person was Fvasconcellos and he has not been active since September 2011. Thanks much. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2012 (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).

Sebastian80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since the VeronicaPR account I have come to appreciate Wikipedia and get into my passion of herpetology. I have been doing nothing but good work under Sebastian80 and I will continue to edit in good faith. Please check my contributions. [[User:Sebastian80|Bastian (talk ★ contribs)]] (talk) 11:13 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You're socking right now! TN X Man 17:11, 20 January 2012 (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 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).

Sebastian80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please, give me a chance. I was doing very well with Sebastian80. I had promoted 2 articles to GA status because of the hard work I put into them. I don't mean to make new accounts, but I just want to be able to edit on Wikipedia. I have a bunch of snake books that I can contribute greatly with and I have been! Please, please give me a chance. Delete ALL my accounts, but just allow me to edit with Sebastian80. I will NEVER make another account as long as I can edit with Sebastian80. Watch me carefully if you have to and one mistake and then block me, I won't complain. But I have been editing in good faith, I really have! Look at my contribution under Sebastian80, have they not been good faith edits? I have done nothing but work hard day and night under that username to improve articles on snakes and I also have created MANY pages. Just ask admin Drmies. He will tell you I have been doing well. Ask another user Mike Searson. Please, give me (Sebastian80) a chance. Please have some compassion, I have been doing good work with Sebastian80 - you have to admit that. Let me keep working on improving the snake articles. PLEASE, PLEASE, I BEG YOU! I have nothing else to do. VeronicaPR is an old, old account that I made a long, long time ago. Delete it. Sebastian80 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We can't delete old accounts. Although it's promising that you promise not to use them (it's not like you could anyway, since in similar situations we leave all the old accounts blocked). However, making this promise right after you got caught socking does not suggest self-control sufficient to make me comfortable with an unblock at this moment. If it had been a long time since your last sock, yes. Wait a bit longer without creating any more socks. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2012 (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.

How long? This is so unfair. All my edits under Sebastian80 were good faith edits. Plus all the hard work I put into so many, many articles, two of which got promoted to GA status. I also created so many pages (for different species of snakes). I really am upset. I swear to you, I can use only Sebastian80. I don't need any of the others. I promise you I will NOT make new accounts. Sebastian80 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2012 (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).

Sebastian80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please I beg you, let me edit under Sebastian80. I promise you on my fathers grave that I will never ever make another account. Look at my record under Sebastian80. It is a solid one. Through a lot of hard work and dedication, I promoted 2 articles to GA status and I was working on more. I created the following pages: Coastal taipan, Jameson's mamba, Javan spitting cobra, West African spitting cobra, Burmese spitting cobra, Nubian spitting cobra, Anchieta's cobra, Samar cobra, and Andaman cobra. Not only did I create them, but I actually made them appropriate articles. A couple of them are still stubs (Burmese spitting cobra and Andaman cobra), but upon being unblocked my plans are to turn them into actual articles just like the others. I also improved as many snake pages as possible. I promoted Naja nigricollis and Black mamba to GA status. I did major work on the following articles: Cape cobra, Naja atra (Chinese cobra), Egyptian cobra, Giant spitting cobra, Eastern green mamba, Western green mamba, Forest cobra, Philippine cobra, Bothrops asper, and I did some work on Snake venom. That all has to count for something, please. Give me a chance and if I screw up once (just once) or if you think I have created another account zap my accounts and block me indefinitely. I swear to you I will not create any other accounts and I will continue to edit in good faith as I have been with Sebastian80. I have done a lot of hard work under that username and I want to stick with it and drop all the other ones. Please, please, please I beg you! Just give me one more chance. You can ask administrator Drmies about me. You can also ask user Mike Searson. I was receiving some mentorship from them. I was doing very well and I will continue to do well under 1 and only 1 account (Sebastian80). Please, you don't understand how important this is to me. I realize that I have made a mistake and I will not make that mistake again. Please take into consideration that VeronicaPR was a very, very old account. I am begging you, please allow me to edit under Sebastian80. I want nothing more. Sad to say it, but Wikipedia is half of my time. I rely on Wikipedia to kill time, boredom, and everything. I enjoy editing about topics I love, like snakes. I have a wealth of books and knowledge on them. I can be an asset to Wikipedia. Just look at my contribution with Sebastian80. I have done a decent job. PLEASE! I fully understand that sock puppetry is wrong and I am very sorry that this happened. If I didn't care or if I wasn't sorry, I wouldn't be begging you to allow me to edit under Sebastian80. I apologize for having multiple accounts. I really am sorry - as sorry as I can be. I am beating myself up over this right now. But please just look at the hard work I have put into many many articles on Wikipedia with Sebastian80. Please. I am legitimately sorry and I will NEVER again make another account. All I am asking is for one more chance. Just one more chance. I truly am very sorry. I read through the WP:Sock puppetry and I sincerely am very sorry. It will never happen again. If it does, block me. But please, just give me a chance to prove myself. Just look at my contributions under Sebastian80. Go back 4 or 5 pages (go back as many pages as you want) and randomly look at the differences of various edits. You'll see that all are in good faith and all were positive and constructive edits. I have not done anything that was destructive, vandalism, or bad. Yes, I had previous accounts and I am very sorry for that. I wish I can take all that back and just have this one account, but I can't do that. Please give me a chance and allow me to continue editing in good faith on Wikipedia. Again, I truly am sorry for having the other accounts. I wish I hadn't done that. Give me a chance to correct my mistake. Please. I will never ever do it again. After reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, I can assure you that I understand that I was blocked for sock puppetry (which is against Wikipedia policy), but I will not cause damage or disruption upon being unblocked because my record under Sebastian80 shows that I can edit in good faith and follow Wikipedia policy. I can also assure you I have learned my lesson (I truly have) and will never ever again make another account or even think of it. I am truly sorry, very very sorry for ever having different accounts and it will never happen again, I promise you that. If it does, block me again and I will not request an unblock because then I would be an idiot and not deserving of the privilege of editing on Wikipedia. I am truly, truly sorry. I will never ever login under any other account but Sebastian80 and I will NEVER make another account. NEVER. Snakes are a great passion of mine and it helps that I actually took college courses related to zoology and herpetology and editing snake articles on Wikipedia and making articles at least of decent quality that are factual and neutral brings me a lot of joy. It helps me kill time and I enjoy it very much. Please unblock me and let me prove myself to you guys. I realize the mistake I made and I wish I can go back in time to fix it, but I can't. You, however, can give me another chance. If I screw up than block me again. Sebastian80 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been blocked repeatedly for sockpuppetry and you have engaged in it as recently as 'a few hours ago. You seem to be suggesting that because it took a while to discover this particular account it makes it ok that you were willfully evading a block. It does not. Your only hope at this point is to consider the standard offer for blocked users, which requires you to demonstrate that you have the self-control to not edit here for several months and not evade the block any more. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2012 (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, JamesBWatson or anyone else, I promise you that I will never ever use any other account but Sebastian80. Give me a chance to prove myself. Just unblock me and if I make one mistake block me again. Please. I truly am sorry and I have learned my lesson. At least talk to me here. Sebastian80 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up to this and address your emails to me ... if the situation is as you describe, then perhaps editing Wikipedia, which you feel is so beneficial for you, is in fact part of the problem if you cannot do so in a way that convinces us that you are ready to do so within the policies that apply to all users. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Daniel, you see I can edit constructively on Wikipedia - just look at my history and contributions with Sebastian80. I realize that sock puppetry is against Wikipedia policy and I truly am sorry for having multiple accounts. I wish I can take it all back, I really do but I can't. The only thing is that you guys give me a chance and allow me to prove myself. I truly have learned my lesson and will not ever use another account on Wikipedia. That is a promise. If I do create an account or if I login into an old account then you guys can block me and I will not request an unblock because then I would be the idiot and not deserving of the privilege of editing on Wiki. I realize I was wrong, I have learned my lesson, and I will never repeat it again. You have at least look at the work I did under Sebastian80 and see that it was all positive and constructive editing. I made a mistake, please don't let this mistake be the end of everything on Wikipedia for me. I promise to you and to Wikipedia that I will never ever again use another account, ever! Please, just give me a chance to prove myself. Sebastian80 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2012 (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).

Sebastian80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and I am deeply, deeply sorry for having multiple accounts and then for evading my original block. I understand that all of that is against Wikipedia policy and I sincerely am very sorry that this happened. All I have to show you is my work under Sebastian80 as proof that I can edit in good faith without any sort of vandalism or anything of that nature. I can also refer you to Administrator Drmies and well established user Mike Searson who can attest to the fact that my intentions for editing are pure and that I was a constructive editor. I also have learned my lesson in regards to having multiple accounts. WP:Sock puppetry is against Wikipedia policy and I assure you that I will never ever make another account or ever use (I can't anyway) any other account but Sebastian80. Words truly cannot explain how sorry I am. I love Wikipedia and as you can see under Sebastian80, I did my very best to expand articles, get references, improve on spelling/grammar wherever I could, place citations under correct format, etc. I helped improve and better almost all the articles related to the Mambas and to the many species of cobras. I did some work on Snake venom and so, so much more - just look at all my contributions under Sebastian80. I also created/started many pages including Coastal taipan, Jameson's mamba, Javan spitting cobra, West African spitting cobra, Burmese spitting cobra, Nubian spitting cobra, Anchieta's cobra, Samar cobra, and Andaman cobra. Not only did I create these pages, but I didn't just create them and leave them as stubs, I expanded them and turned them into legitimate articles which one can expand on and further improve. Aside from working diligently creating these articles, I also promoted two articles to Good Article status through a lot of hard work, dedication, and diligence. The two articles which I worked hard on and promoted to GA status are the black mamba article and Naja nigricollis. When I started, both of these articles were in shambles and through a lot of research, hard work, and dedication I improved them enough to become GA articles. This shows that I am serious about contributing constructively on Wikipedia. I have a wealth of knowledge and a collection of numerous books all about venomous snakes and their venom. I also have had hands on experience with snakes and all I want to do is help improve wikipedia articles pertaining to snakes, particularly venomous snakes. I also can contribute to toxicology and pharmacology related articles. I have a 3 year degree in medical laboratory technology. I understand that all of this doesn't excuse the fact that I violated the WP:Sock puppetry policy, but I also hope for second chances. All I can do is apologize and you have no idea how sorry I am - I am very, very sorry from the bottom of my heart. It was all a big mistake that I wish I can take all back. All I wish for is to be able to once again edit constructively through hard work and diligence to further help improve articles on Wikipedia. Again, I am very sorry for having violated any Wikipedia policy and I truly have learned my lesson. Wikipedia editing is a privilege and I will not take it for granted ever again. I will never ever again violate any Wikipedia policy, I will never ever create another account and I will never ever attempt to evade a block. I simply will not violate any Wikipedia policies. That is a promise. Please allow me a second chance and I will prove myself. All I want is a second chance. If I mess up my second chance then block me for good. Please and thanks. Sebastian80 (talk) 12:42 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Decline reason:

Your apologies are well enough, but your consistent sockpuppeting is what has been quite worrying. Can I request you to list out all the other accounts you have created in the past on this project, apart from those already found out by us? Please do realize, we could investigate your sockpuppetry at the toolserver level too. It would do you a lot of good to reveal all the relevant information yourself right now to display that you wish to regain the faith of the community. Once you do that on this talk page, the suggestion is to not post another unblock request. The duration of six months that is being alluded to is only a benchmark for reference. You could be back in two months too; but it all depends on your contributions and editing behavior during that period. Best of luck for you. Wifione ^Message 09:49, 28 January 2012 (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.

I'll leave this request for another admin to review since i have already declined one. I would ask if there was something about WP:OFFER that you didn't understand, since I already explained that going that route is your best bet to actually being unblocked. We simply can't take you at your word at the monent because you have abused the community's trust in this manner. The fact that you got away with evading a block for a while does nothing to mitigate that, as I have also already endeavored to make clear to you. There is a limit to how many times you will be allowed to appeal in this manner, and you are right up against it, so if this request is denied you will probably have your talk page revoked and will need to appeal through WP:BASC after that. Or, you could take the high road right now, rescind this request and agree to abide by the terms of the standard offer. Your choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can wait but for how long? I understand that under WP:OFFER it says six months - does have to be six months or does that depend on the individual person at hand. I can wait and go through WP:OFFER and I have already begun working in Wikispecies under the username Sebastian80. It said that I should continue to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF-projects prior to requesting. However, I am deeply sorry for violating Wikipedia policies and I am promising that I will edit in good faith as I had been with Sebastian80. I truly have learned my lesson and I have learned to take Wikipedia policy seriously. If this is declined, I will wait and go the WP:OFFER route - no need to revoke my ability to post on my talk page. I just want to it to be known that I am serious in that I will not violate any Wikipedia policies and if this request is accepted I will edit in good faith under Wikipedia policy. If I don't know something I will check it and double check on it if I have to. If I have to go through the WP:OFFER then so be it. I will prove myself that way. I just would like to know whether it must be six months. Can I wait say two months, while contributing significantly to other WMF-projects? Sebastian80 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only accounts that I know of were TheGoodSon, VeronicaPR (which wasn't made by me, but I took over it later), Yendoandando (this was made on Wikimedia Commons because this guy gave me permission to use his pictures and said that I can upload them under his name - I know that was a stupid thing to do, it will never happen again), and the very last one was Naja oxiana (I made this after Sebastian80 got blocked). That's it. That is all the accounts. Of course, Sebastian80 is my best one and the only one I would like to keep. I will never ever create or use any other account but Sebastian80. That is a promise and if I have to wait two months while contributing to other WMF-projects to prove myself then I will. I'll do anything to gain the communities trust again. By the way, Wifione or any of the other administrators, do you have an e-mail where I can reach you at? Sebastian80 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about any ip addresses that you edited from while being logged out? Wifione ^Message 03:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't say because I've never used just one computer. I've used many different public computers or computers that belonged to different friends. But I'll be honest and say that I never really edited much from an IP address. The last account I used before Sebastian80 was VeronicaPR and the last time I used that account was June 2011. Then I took a long break from editing and then started Sebastian80 in September 2011. Since September 2011, I worked very hard and in good faith. But this happened. God I wish I can take it all back. Sebastian80 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have been mentoring/helping this editor while he was using this account. I can't speak to his past behavior but can vouch that under this ID he has been a valued contributor. I have not seen any posted diffs of alleged past bad behavior. People screw up, it's human nature. I think he should be given a chance. If he messes up again...then ban him without question. Maybe it is a sore spot because I was falsely accused of sockpuppetry and never so much as got an apology after my name was dragged through the mud for a week on here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're showing up a bit late in the game for a supposed mentor. In any event, he has admitted to sockpuppetry so every edit by this account was an act of bad faith. Period. A block is on the person behind the account, not just the name. If you are going to mentor other users you should understand such basic policy points. He has already agreed to take the WP:OFFER route so the best thing for all of us to do at this point is to stop posting here until he comes back to request unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spoke to the initiating admin back when it started, to be honest, I don't claim to be any kind of wikiexpert, just was asled to mentor with regard to editing and sourcing articles. I have never been blocked in 6 years of editing and i don't politic on here or use it as "social hour", the bulk of my work is editing. So if he agreed to the offer of 6 months, then that is what he has to do.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike for your support. Beeblebrox, yes I admitted I had previous accounts (at least I didn't lie, I could've lied but I decided to be honest hoping that in being honest I wouldn't be punished as badly) - but look at how long ago I used each account and you'll notice that it has been a very, very longtime. Plus, I did agree to take WP:OFFER, but its mostly because you left me with absolutely no choice. I begged, I apologized, and I sincerely meant every bit of what I said and asked for a second chance and I was denied and denied. I was left with no choice but to accept WP:OFFER to prove myself, despite the fact that I have proven to be a very good contributor under Sebastian80. I made a mistake, we all do - as Mike said, it's human nature. I was honest, I apologized, I promised I wouldn't do it again, and I promised to continue editing in good faith under Sebastian80 - but I was still denied and punished to the fullest extent. I thought that maybe being honest, apologizing, and genuinely promising never to do it again might've at least made an Admin look at this case with a little more compassion and an open-heart willing to give a second chance. I'm still willing to go through WP:OFFER, of course, but if you are willing to give me a second chance I'll take that too. Sebastian80 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian, you have 6 months, per yout offer. Let it go for now, maybe take the time to brush up on your wrirting and sourcing technique, so that if you return you'll be ready to get back in the swing of things in July. Maybe we can find a wiki which is not part of wikipedia for you to get some practice on in the meantime. I'm sure there is a snake related resource out there. They have wikis devoted to hundreds of hobbies and fields. For now this is where we are at, so let's make the best of it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, they actually told me that I don't have to wait 6 months and that I could wait 2 months while contributing significantly to other WMF-projects (I'm doing work in Wikispecies, Wikimedia Commons, etc). So they said I don't have to wait 6 months, I can wait 2. Sebastian80 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution maps, and some useful sources

Hey Sebastian. I just wanted to let you know that the distribution maps for Jameson's mamba and the Chinese cobra are up and I already put them in the articles. Here they are:

Jameson's mamba
Chinese cobra

During my research for reference maps I found a couple of good sources that might be useful for the snake articles:

Poisonous snakes of the world : a manual for use by the U. S. amphibious forces: this is a free book and you can download it in pdf and several other formats. You'll find the download links at the left side of that website.
Guidelines for the Prevention and Clinical Management of Snakebite in Africa: this is a very useful document from the World Health Organization. There's a pdf you can download from the page (here's a quick link to the download.)

I'm sorry that you've been blocked as you've been doing a great job on snake articles. I hope you come back soon. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 09:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the wonderful looking maps, Orionist. I liked the maps so much, I couldn't help but e-mail you to ask for two more maps. These two maps are for two GA status articles: the black mamba and Naja nigricollis. I promoted those articles to GA status and I did the maps you currently see in the articles - but they are nowhere as nice as yours and as GA status articles, I think they deserve better. You can take your time, no rush. I sent you more details in the e-mail regarding the range of the black mamba as it is a bit confusing. In regards to the block, I'm sorry too - believe me I wish I can take it all back. But I hope I can be back in a couple of weeks (I'm going to try again in a couple of weeks). Thanks for the good sources you sent my way, I really do appreciate it. I hope I will be able to use them once I get back and continue editing the articles which I left unfinished. Despite the block, I have been working a bit on Wikispecies and also Wikimedia Commons. So I am still doing what I can to improve Wikipedia an article at a time. In the meantime, I've been trying to get pictures of different snakes, especially for those articles that don't have pictures or for articles that I hope I will be starting/creating (there are at least 5 articles that I plan on creating) when/if I am unblocked. Hopefully, I will be given a second chance. Sebastian80 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2012 (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).

Sebastian80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey, it has been almost a month since my block and its been just a bit over two weeks since I made a last plea for unblock. In the meantime, I have been doing work on Wikispecies and Wikimedia Commons. I have been working on getting pictures for articles that don't have pictures, or for articles which I hope to create/start if I am given a second chance and unblocked. All I have to say is that I truly have learned my lesson - Wikipedia has certain policies for certain reasons and I broke some policies. I am sincerely sorry and I hope that I have earned the trust of the community again. As you can see, I have two well-established posters (Mike Searson and Orionist) who have vouched for me as being a good editor. I promise that I will never again use any other account but Sebastian80 and never to break any other Wikipedia policy. I promise to you that if unblocked I will edit in good faith and will not cause any trouble at all. I read the Wikipedia:Blocking policy and it is meant to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I promise you that I will most definitely NOT cause any damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but on the contrary, I will be a constructive editor and commit my knowledge of venomous snakes to improving articles and starting/creating ones which have not yet been created. Please, give me a chance. Discuss it and see that I mean no harm at all. Ask more posters about me, I truly just want to edit in good faith. Please give me just a chance and I'll prove myself. Sebastian80 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

6 months means six months. Go over to Simple; show yourself to be a good editor there, and come back and prove it to us. Your extensive socking cannot be overcome by some positive editing. You have a lot of proving of yourself to be done - go away, and do it. If nothing else, we're protecting the project from exchanges like the one below. I will be protecting this talkpage for a total of 6 months from the original block so that you do not abuse the goodwill of the community in this manner again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:50, 12 February 2012 (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.

You clearly are unable to understand the terms of WP:OFFER. You're supposed to go away for a significant period of time. You never actually did that at all, you kept posting here and you openly admit you only waited two weeks. If you can't comprehend such a simple set of conditions it is difficult to believe any promises to abide by other WP policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, I read the Wikipedia:Blocking policy and it clearly says that its purpose is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. However, I feel like I am being punished right now. I have acknowledged why I was blocked, understood it and understood that it is wrong to break Wikipedia policy, I also promised to edit in good faith and my record under Sebastian80 proves that I can edit in good faith and 2 posters vouching for me is a definite plus in my favor. Yet, despite my clear pleas that I will contribute in good faith and pleading for a second chance, I get you telling me off. I am currently being punished, and that is against Wikipedia policy. Sebastian80 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking for is a second chance. That's all! A second chance to prove myself. I enjoy editing on Wikipedia and I feel like waiting all this time is a big waste of time where I can be doing so many positive things on so many articles. I am a positive contributor and all I need is a second chance to prove myself. Please someone give me that second chance. Sebastian80 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That completely specious. How to get that second chance was explained to you repeatedly. You acted as though you understood that, and then you ignored it anyway. You were editing here on your talk page during the period where you said you would go work elsewhere on some other project. You were socking at the same time you made your previous unblock requests. Ypur word cannot be trusted because you don't keep to it, which is why WP:OFFER was extended to you, giving you a chance to prove it instead of just asking us to take your word for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't have to take my word for it. You can just look at my record under this account. So I made a mistake in the past and I have other accounts. I'm promising that I will not do it again and that I only use this account and edit in good faith. Just give me that second chance. If I screw up, then block me indefinitely and I will not even bother requesting an unblock because I would not be deserving of one at that time. I feel like I am being punished and I would like other Admins, other than YOU, to look at my pleas. I would like Drmies or some other Admins to look at this and perhaps discuss it. WP:OFFER is just a big waste of time. I could be doing so much good in that time. I had so many plans on creating articles and working on so many others when I was blocked so suddenly. I would like to continue editing in good faith and I would like a second chance thats all that I want. If I screw up, block me again. Sebastian80 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, I did leave your unblock request alone so that another admin can review it. I don't see any value in continuing this conversation either, so I'll be unwatching your page and will not be commenting here any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate and respect you as an Administrator, but I'm sorry because I feel like you are simply punishing me. I've seen editors do worse and be considered for unblock the same day they were blocked. Example is User talk:Lung salad, why can't I be given the same treatment? Sebastian80 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume from your last edit that you consider edit-warring (which Lung salad was blocked for) to be worse than sock-puppetry. This is not the consensus view of the wikipedia community. Edit-warring is, by definition transparent and any damage caused to the encyclopedia is visible and easily rectified. Sockpuppetry has the potential to produce insidious and long-lasting damage which can be quite difficult and tedious to eradicate. Whether you did in fact cause such damage, which I do not contend, is beside the point. The popint is that it is a possible effect of sockpuppetry. You will notice that I have played no previous part in your block saga. But I suggest, very seriously, that you right now aceept unconditionally the offer which has been made, and explained repeatedly, on this page. It is not negotiable, and while one editor did indeed suggest that your time served could in some circumstance be less than six months this is not usual, and posting unblock requests after only two weeks will make early unblock less likely.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make a comment on a note in the decline: "Go over to Simple; show yourself to be a good editor there, and come back and prove it to us." On behalf of the other admins at Simple, I must say please don't bring this kind of attitude over to Simple. Your actions here won't be tolerated there either. only (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well

That's a fine mess. Last time I was here was before all this socking came out; I have little to add to what the above administrators say. Time will tell if you'll come back or not.

But I came here with a specific purpose: I just ran into another problematic edit of yours, on a GA no less--this one, on Naja nigricollis. Those links are not OK per WP:EL--three of them are links to images, and one of them, this one, is nothing more than spam. This makes me want to revisit the GAs you did--I have posted already on that topic, above.

I propose the following: if you ever come back, you do not touch the GA process. I hope this is clear: as far as I can tell, you have discredited that process. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had my doubts already while looking at that article history; Tnxman307 just confirmed, per CU, that you couldn't stop socking: LAx33 (talk · contribs). Your indefinite block is looking more indefinite every time. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]