User talk:SquishyZ1
Welcome to my talk page. If you need to message me, message me here.
Thank you for listening. DO NOT DELETE THIS! I will remove messages as needed because it may get too big.
To see any Archived pages.
I am blocked right now, but hopefully my req gets appealed because I have changed during these years. If not, oh well, I GUESS IT MEANS GOODBYE FELLOW WIKIPEDIA EDITORS.
Start below here:
Are you related to Yay Dad or NOOO KEVIN!!
[edit]A few days ago you posted to my userpage asking to have the talk page for NOOO KEVIN!! deleted. This came across as strange, given that the user had been blocked over a year ago and there was little to no activity on their pages. I asked if you were related to these accounts, as it's uncommon for a new user to take notice of an account blocked that long ago and even more uncommon to ask for talk page deletions.
I took a look at your edit history and it looks like you share an interest with both accounts, namely that you edit Merrie Melodies related content. I also note that you also have a tendency to post copyvio to pages, just like both accounts did in the past.
There's a lot of evidence here to suggest that you are either Yay Dad or NOOO KEVIN!! evading your block, so much evidence that I'm going to block you for this reason. I'm sorry, but block evasion is against Wikipedia guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes
[edit]User:Tokyogirl79 Yes I know I violated the terms, but I had to do it because you guys wouldn't appeal my block earlier this year, around August 2016. I have been editing under alias for 2 months now, and is going great. Blocks need to be short between 1 week and 1 year. Indefinite blocks never solve anything. In fact make problems worse. I'm not stupid, lol. Don't think im stupid for trying to violate my block, but indefinite is way too long. I literally send like 5 unblock requests over the past year and none were accepted, EVEN WHEN I SAID SORRY, I WON'T DO IT AGAIN.
Indeed I am, but I am sorry and promise to make contributable edits in the future. If you unblock me, maybe I will actually contribute. I have had this account for over two months now. I have not vandalized anything, nor created attack pages. NOOO KEVIN!! was my friend, but I am indeed Yay Dad. Terrribly sorry, that I did this last year, but now times had changed. and you better had expected a lesson learned from me that is. Its fine if I stay blocked I mean I really only edit here cause I get bored but I am just here to tell you. I have learned my lesson and I am sorry for what happened a year and half ago.
You guys have to understand that over times people learn from their mistakes. Everyone make mistake and need to learn from it. So maybe if you were nice and would reconcile would be nice, then that's a different story. People change and humans make mistake. They learn from their mistakes and know not to do shit again. Of course, I stopped hanging out with User:NOOO KEVIN!! because he got me blocked from here, so I am not his friend anymore. He was sent to a military juvinelle hall because of his discipline record in school. Plus, he was a bad influence on me. He threw an egg at his teacher. Said fuck you to the principal and threw a knife and almost killed the security lady. But luckily he isn't my friend anymore.
I am so sorry and promise to make useful edits now. That's why I made this account because you guys probably wouldn't appeal my block. I have been creating new pages and citing sources for them. I am trying to make pages for all the Looney Tunes shorts. Every short deserves a page. I had a mentor over the summer who taught me that bullying wasn't the way to solve my problems. and since then I have taken his efforts to become a better person to the community and the country, including Wikipedia.
If you would reconsider unblocking this account. That would be great, if you do keep User:Yay Dad blocked. cause I like this acc better. And please don't say that "you are a big liar. stop lying and we will not let you edit here anymore. you are just a fake phoney loser who has nothing in life to do but troll." that is not the case no more. If you give feedback at least make it so I don't feel bad. because lately, I haven't been feeling so well and this makes me happy. so please Make a guy happy. Is the right thing to do.
If I vandalize again, you can block me. And I will not make any new accounts, if I vandalize a second time.
PS: NOOO KEVIN!! was used for vandalism. My "friend" never was interested in editing only in causing trouble. SquishyZ1 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Unblock request
[edit]
SquishyZ1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please include the original unblock request.
Decline reason:
Only one unblock request at a time, please. See below. Huon (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unblock request
[edit]SquishyZ1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So then how do I get unblocked if I cant create any sockpuppets. Do I have to wait 6 months. and try again? And badhand, I haven't used Yay Dad in the longest time
Decline reason:
No reason given to justify unblock. I unblock sockpuppet accounts only in the most exceptionally unusual cases, which this is not. I remind you that a block applies to a user, not just to a specified account.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
November 2016
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC) |
SquishyZ1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That was over a year ago, look at all the edits. Am I vandalizing, no. So maybe I have changed if you see. Maybe if you took time to look at what I was doing, maybe you could say. Ah, he has learned from his mistakes. Blocks are meant to be short from 1 week to a year at most. Also, read my message on my talk page. It really means to have a place to enjoy life. I like Wikipedia, but if you block me. Then what can I do. I mean last year I was a dick I admit it but this year im working on new resolutions. to make my life better. So please, if you would unblock me. I promise I wont vandalize again. Last year, I was a freshman. Now I am a junior, ready to move on to college. I gotta act my age now. Freshman are immature, and I realize I cannot act that way anymore. to anybody. its not right and its not mature. so I give up. that act, of course.
Decline reason:
There are ways to regain the community's trust. Sockpuppetry is not among them. Besides, it seems likely that you used a "bad hand" account as recently as September, making it difficult to believe your claims of a change of heart. Huon (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
SquishyZ1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #16833 was submitted on Nov 03, 2016 00:53:54. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not endorse an unblock of this user, as I don't see where they've learned a thing. If they had, they're not giving off any impression of this via their editing. They're not engaged in cyberbullying with this account, but then it looks like they were likely behind the account Your Mom's Pussi in September or were at least involved to some degree - a vandalism only account. There's also a good chance that they had also signed up with Sock x2 and I kind of have to wonder if we'll find more via the SPI. Now even if we were to ignore the past cyberbullying and recent vandalism account, they are still violating guidelines by repeatedly posting copyright violations and creating articles with severe notability issues. Between all of the accounts they've had more than enough warnings to know that posting copyright violations are a blockable offense in and of itself and that articles must be sourced with independent, reliable sources. They haven't done that and when they do source an article, it's with some extremely poor sourcing like Daily Motion, IMDb, or a forum post. I don't know what's worse - the idea that they don't know what they did wrong and why it's bad or that they are aware and they just don't care. In the first instance we have someone who is incapable of understanding despite multiple, fairly clear warnings and blocks and in the second we have someone who is capable but ultimately unwilling to shape up. I don't know that the standard offer is a good idea here, since I don't think that this behavior will change any time soon, given that it'd been a year since the original accounts and they're still engaging in the same behaviors as before, just minus the cyberbullying - and I'm inclined to believe that the lack of cyberbullying is less because they understand that it's wrong and more that they know that engaging in this activity on Wikipedia will get them caught that much faster.
- I'm going to revoke their talk page access. I doubt very seriously that they're going to be unblocked and he'll likely just continue to spam the page with repeated unblock requests and waste admin time. He's only showing remorse because he was caught, not because he's learned anything. I don't think that he's going to be mature enough to edit Wikipedia any time in the next 2-3 years at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Some other food for thought as far as the "they haven't learned much" category goes is that when it came to the cyberbullying stuff last year he said that the cyberbullying was going to stop because the bullying was being moved to Wikia. Not that they realized it was wrong, but that they just found another avenue for these actions. I know it's kind of just piling stuff on here, but this just goes to show that they're really not mature enough for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Given the usernames used and the behavior displayed, we can do much better without more of this drama thank you very much. --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 07:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Me
[edit]Ok, ill come back when I am ready to edit. I just need to practice editing with better sources. If I need to contact you guys I will when I am ready. thanks, I think its better I get more practice in editing and this ban will enforce it. I am sorry, and I am crying in joy. SquishyZ1 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Recent Files
[edit]I found a recent file called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2nd_chance and it allows you to reapply for a second chance. I'll try again in 6 months. SquishyZ1 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked talk access - I thought I'd done that already. The thing about the second chance is that it only works if you're given it in the first place - and I highly, highly recommend that you not be given a second chance within six months. I don't think you'll be ready then, as you weren't ready now when you violated your block to create a new account nor were you ready when you created the vandalism accounts - and it was confirmed that you created the following accounts:
- SquishyZ1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Sock x2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Your Mom's Pussi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MYBIGDOG (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- You didn't tell that you opened a new account, MYBIGDOG, only a day after I initially blocked you for sockpuppetry and that honestly says a lot about your maturity level. You signed back up with multiple accounts in the hopes that you wouldn't get detected, but you got caught. You had this account and you actually went undetected for a while despite making a lot of the same mistakes with copyright violations and improperly sourcing articles... yet you couldn't maintain that and ended up drawing attention to yourself again. Since you signed up with the original accounts you've shown some extremely poor judgement, judgement that hasn't grown any better since your first accounts over a year ago. Basically all you had to do was follow guidelines and you couldn't even do that, either because you couldn't understand them or you wouldn't understand them. I don't think that six months will make an ounce of difference. If by some chance you were to mature enough with time to come back to Wikipedia, I think that it'd take years before you are ready. As it is now, I'm fairly certain that you'll likely turn around and violate your block again and create a new account.
- If it wasn't clear to any incoming admins, I do not endorse a second chance. I'm actually not sure if he'll ever be someone who should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, but I hate to speak in absolutes like that since I have no idea if he'll mature enough when he gets older. If you want to look at it this way, this account could have been seen as a second chance and he has shown that he was unable and/or unwilling to follow guidelines. Minus the cyberbullying, he's still violating the same guidelines and will only do this again if he's ever unblocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
[edit]
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, SquishyZ1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Ionlyhaveeyesforyou.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ionlyhaveeyesforyou.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
