User talk:SirShiek

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SirShiek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Not a dog 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying other users' comments

[1] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Hu12 09:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming of http://spam.geocities.com/ruleoftherose/index.html

Adsense pub-4696585109196199

Spam sock accounts

67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.186.199.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.217.169.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.217.16.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.46.242.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
142.177.42.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It has become apparent that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links or self-promotion, so it has been blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will also have their websites blacklisted.

--Hu12 00:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?! What the heck are you talking about?! I insert one link and get blocked without even so much as a warning?! I may be fairly new here, but that has got to be against some kind of rule!!SirShiek 00:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry accounts

67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.186.199.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.217.169.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.217.16.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.46.242.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
142.177.42.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got some nerve!! How can you accuse someone of having "puppet" accounts without any proof?! You can bet I'm going to contact Wikipedia about this. How DARE you ban me indefinately without proof?! It is not even possible for those accounts to be mine, which they are not. None of those are my IP address. One of them is a Sweden IP address, and another is an American one!! I'm going to see to it you get in trouble for this, because you have no right to do treat me this way.SirShiek 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Wikipedia. Not only that, but I have contacted some of the owners of my alleged "puppet" IP addresses, since I recognize two of them, and encouraged them to report you as well for this. You can't harass people like this and get away with it. I'm onto your little scheme. You are blocking everyone who supported that link. That is harassment and discrimination, not to mention a major abuse of power.SirShiek 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Your contributions to wikipedia consist exclusively of Voting and other shows of support for www.geocities.com/ruleoftherose/. Looking through your contributions as a whole, this Wikipedia:Single-purpose account seems to be www.geocities.com/ruleoftherose/ related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Policies apply per person, not per account.--Hu12 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have no proof. I have not been a member long enough to do much else. However, I have also made contributions to the Clock Tower: The First Fear page, correcting the false info that the game had been published by Capcom. That alone proves you are wrong. And there is nothing wrong with voicing support for something on a discussion page-I have broken no rules. You have no right to ban me and all those other people because you disagree about a link. We are different people. Those IP addresses clearly could not belong to the same person, lest said person owns a private jet to take them between Canada, America, Sweden, and wherever the others originate from. Your blocking of me and them was unfair and has been reported.SirShiek 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was add a link that was being treated unfairly. It is in support of ALL the guidelines, but despite me pointing that out exstensively, individuals like you refused to do anything but berate me for being a new user. And now you have blocked me without proper cause, daring to try and accuse me of all these false things!SirShiek 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SirShiek, if infact it turns out your involvement is urelated in any way, I will be happy to unban this account.--Hu12 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is that supposed to help me?! You KNOW you are wrong. This is about the tenth time you have wrongly banned someone and gotten away with it. You won't this time, since I've also contacted the owner of the fansite. You've got a lot of angry Wiki users planning to report you for harassing them.SirShiek 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That helps you in the following way: if the IPs are unrelated, you will be unblocked, and can continue to edit Wikipedia as long as you desist from adding inappropriate external links. This site was added many times by the site owner (by their own admission) and there is no consensus to include it. The onus is always on the individual seeking to include content, to gain consensus for its inclusion. Edit-warring over links to sites which have been repeatedly spammed by their owners is a quick and easy way to get (and stay) blocked. This edit [10] replacing DMOZ with the Geocities site was completely inappropriate and more or less bound to end in trouble. You need to put down the stick and step away from the horse, and if you aren't going to do that then you're not going to get a lot of sympathy. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not done your research. The site added, despite what anyone may say, did follow all of the neccessary guidelines. The owner of it was NEVER here, they all just tried to pin the ownership on someone to make the real owner look bad, and thus, she never submitted the link. I've since met the real owner of said site, and she has confirmed this for me. I added the link once, because it follows the guidelines, and the editors were personally attacking and refusing to listen to each person who supported the link, with Hu12 threatening to ban ALL of them on an accusation he knows is completely bogus. In the future, I would suggest you do a little more research before joining in an argument and telling people "how it is".SirShiek 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, a lot of good it did me. I'm still blocked and someone is trying to claim the accusations are true. Accuse all you want, but none of those IPs are mine. It's a shame how you guys go around trying to make these accusations and don't even bother to offer any proof. Just because more than one person happens to support the same cause, that does not make them the same person. And you wonder why no one wants to contribute here. Stuff like this happens. I join in a discussion for a game I happen to like and get banned indefinately and accused of having all these accounts.SirShiek 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this will do any good, but I'll post a copy here too. I'm afraid you are mistaken. I never wanted to get involved with this, but now I have no choice. I'm the owner of the infamous Rule of Rose fansite all the fighting has been over. Let me clarify that, whether you believe me or not, this is the first time I have posted on Wikipedia EVER. I am also the owner of a forum that has quite a good deal of the Rule of Rose fans out there on it, some of which have been participating in the fight-and no, not through any message on my forum telling them to do so-such a thing never existed. On my forum, I have the power to see the IPs of those who posts and am close friends with many of my members. I can tell you without a doubt that most of these IPs do not all belong to the same person, with the exception of the 84 one. Due to privacy reasons, I will not list who said members are. I am good friends with the person who owns the 67 IP you are accusing of being SirShiek now and have recently become accquainted with SirShiek himself since he just joined my forum after you banned him. They are not the same person, whether you choose to believe it or not. I can see both their IPs-they are NOT the same person.RedRosePrincess 06:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)