User talk:Xplane-maniac

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Xplane-maniac. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have installed Twinkle but when I went to use it, a message said I was too new to use Twinkle. How old do you have to be to use it? Xplane-maniac (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account must be four days old and have at least 10 edits. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account status

Hello, Xplane-maniac.Your account is new and therefore you are an unconfirmed user to use Twinkle.For normal circumstances, you must have to wait for probation period of Four days.But, if you really want anything that requires your account to be confirmed, you can always make a formal request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 07:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Xplane-maniac. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed.
Message added 09:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing indefinitely for evading a validly-imposed block. The block on your previous account applies to YOU the person. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may return to your previous account and appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 25 June 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).

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

Request reason:

So you have blocked me for no reason of which I know about. I didn't have a previous account on here, this is a new account and no ther accounts are on the IP I'm using. You just blocked me for no reason are you sure you have the right person?Xplane-maniac - Keeping Wikipedia free of vandals (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious block evasion. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:47, 26 June 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.

Yes, 100% certain, oh Monarch of Angling, in thy little part of the UK. The block applies to the PERSON, not the account. And "retiring" when you're already blocked doesn't count (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 26 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I reallY have no clue who fishingking is and what you are going in about. How have you somehow linked my INNOCENT ACCOUNT with some nasty vandal? I am a very reliable source, I am of 40 years of age, studied at Cambridge and I am willing to improve historical articles. Not to cause havoc. Review the block as I'm really keen to share history. Although I'm saying I'm going to do this and that, my edit history does not say it as I was waiting for twinkle to be activated on my account (Wednesday or Thursday). Kindest regards J.E.C (initials) Xplane-maniac - Keeping Wikipedia free of vandals (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having looked at the evidence, I am convinced that you are pretty certainly FishingKing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 27 June 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.

The McCarthy era ended some time ago, just FYI. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are unlikely to get you unblocked. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and as a heads-up to any passing admin, I have a CU e-mail that is related to this, if you feel the need to confirm with me :-) ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the CU say about my account? As there is nothing that is dodgy about me or it Xplane-maniac - Keeping Wikipedia free of vandals (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd beg to differ - use of proxies is pretty dodgy. Although you're not using a very good one, as it's still very

Likely that you're FishingKing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm using a proxy up is not to conceal my identity on here specifically but I'd rather remain anonymous online as the Internet is a dangerous place. I am not fishingking and have never met them. Xplane-maniac 06:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not asking you to go as far as unblocking my account. I am 'Fishingking' and I know what I did wrong and just wanted to start fresh. If you look at the contributions from this account they aren't vandalism or sock puppetry. I am a changed person, I am just asking you to change the block from indefinite to a few months, so then I know the amount of time I have to reflect and think what I did wrong. I can also then take it as a block as I know when the start and finish is and I will have a few months (say 4 or 5) off Wikipedia, punishing myself for such stupid activities and edits. I hope you take my request into consideration as it will make me more likely to follow the block if you know what I mean. I don't care if you put 1 year as a block I just want a more specific time period that 'indefinitely' as another user said that doesn't mean forever. Thanks Xplane-maniac - Keeping Wikipedia free of vandals (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, using sockpuppets is an inherently dishonest action, which means that it is difficult to believe anything you say. The fact that you lied repeatedly, claiming that this account was a new user, and only tried telling the truth after lying didn't work, seems to indicate that you are a dishonest person. You have only shifted from lying to threats, threatening to avoid the block again if you aren't unblocked. If your first reaction to a penalty is lying, and your second is threatening, and 'an honest attempt to follow the rules even if it isn't to your benefit' has not yet occurred to you at all, you will probably not be a person who will be happy or successful in the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 27 June 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.

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Xplane-maniac,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]