User talk:Twentyfour-dot-something

Welcome!

Hello, Twentyfour-dot-something, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

You may also want to check out WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT, per whatever your edit summary was] before someone decided to remove it for you. He iro 00:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twentyfour-dot-something, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Twentyfour-dot-something! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked for trolling and because it is clear that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Rs chen 7754 06:57, 2 December 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).

Twentyfour-dot-something (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What the hell did I do to deserve this?

Decline reason:

In the unlikely event that you really don't know what was wrong with what you have done, you lack the ability to understand the nature of what you are doing, so you will not be able to edit here constructively. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 3 December 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.

Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw AN/I. It's wrong. Y'all should really consult a CheckUser before deciding whether or not I'm socking. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 14:45, 3 December 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).

Twentyfour-dot-something (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, really, I'm honestly not a sock, and I invite you to consult with a CheckUser to verify that. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for socking, and in any event Checkuser cannot prove the absence of socking. Your next unblock appeal will need to include a valid reason why you should be unblocked, or you will likely lose the ability to edit this page. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:33, 3 December 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.

Consult your block log and read that ANI thread a little closer, you weren't blocked for socking, you were blocked for disruption and trolling. Only after your block did someone suggest you might be the sock of a blocked user, who was also blocked for disruption. He iro 18:48, 3 December 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).

Twentyfour-dot-something (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I still don't have a valid reason to request an immediate unblock, although I now understand what went on at AN/I, and now understand WP:POINT. I would like to suggest that the indefblock be modified, though. I'm honestly not sure how to interpret an indef on the account and one week on the IP-- is that as a lifetime ban on me personally, or am I just being forced not to use this account again? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account has not made any edits that made the encyclopedia better, and this "unblock request" doesn't provide any specific reason to think that the account is likely to make the encyclopedia better in the future, so there's nothing in this request that would justify my overturning this block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 December 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.

Indefinite is in Infinite, it just means it is of undetermined length. If you actually showed you understood what got you blocked, were genuine in promising to not do it again, and could convince an admin to unblock, you could edit. An IP is different because they are shifted around a lot by the ISP(Internet service provider) so admins usually don't block them for extended periods here because it is likely it will shift to another person after awhile. But, since your named account is blocked, you are now tied to that account, if caught editing again from the IP or another IP while still blocked, those IPs can be blocked for WP:BLOCKEVASION, and some IPs and IP ranges can be blocked for up to 6 months or a year if escalating disruption is coming from then. If you are serious about wanting to edit here, I would withdraw or rephrase your last unblock request, explain that you know what it is that got you blocked and agree to not repeat said behavior, maybe an admin will WP:AGF and unblock you. Most of us around here (especially the long term contributors) are here to do something constructive, build an encyclopedia. This is not a forum, or a place to prove a point or to argue for arguments sake(although there ends up being plenty of that here). If that's what you want to do (build an encyclopedia), request an unblock, but if you are here to troll or score points for whatever reason, I wouldn't plan on being unblocked for long. Hope this helps, He iro 02:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get it: I think I pointed out in that request that I now understand WP:POINT. Are you saying that I'm blocked until I apologize? In that case: I'm sorry. (I don't really know how to make contrition sound sincere over the Internet. ;-/) Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you propose a constructive edit to any article of your choice, to show us that you do intend to contribute positively from now on? Please describe it below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to look at the content of their deleted edit before you go extending such offers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err... they don't have any deleted edits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted, but revdeled, such as this one and one or two at AN/I. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Twentyfour-dot-something. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]