User talk:Zaiger

I use to be User:Zaiger420, my past edits are over there.

TALK ARCHIVE 0

ZAIGER IS A FEMALE DOG YO YOU AND YOUR CANDY BOY PHONE ARE A JOKE GO BACK TO CLAM CHOWDER YOU "CHOWDERHEAD" lololol nice wikitalk - Bonzi aka Eastside Bonzi 76.6.33.95 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey there, I know you! Good to see ya here ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job keeping the CWC talk page clean.193.1.52.12 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmm

Nice TOW account. lol -THE MATTY! TALK! 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmmm

oh hey I saw you on ED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.101.128 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a good thing you are unregistered and I am a checkuser or else I would have never known it was you, mescalito. --Zaiger_talkplx 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Sup dude? PirateSmackK (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation needed

If you could corroborate the recent move of your userpage at User talk:PirateSmackK#Explain this, that'd be fantastic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Confirmation needed, just eat this and relax

PirateSmackK (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

THIS JUST IN!!!

Dateline: 16 August 2009

"Unnamed scriptkiddies have just mounted a successful raid against AnonIB; hacked in via an exploit and deleted f****ing everything!! Literally thousands of boards fragged in a matter of hours; millions of furries and pedofags left homeless in the ensuing chaos. Hackers originally claimed they were from 420chan, but the most likely suspect is Ebaums.

No word from AnonIB's admin so far; GOA and Mindpoop seem to be completely unaware of the encroaching lollercaust. In the meantime, hundreds of desperate furfags are trying to set up new boards, but the hackers are still raeping the site into oblivion. To quote the invaders: "Although everything was deleted, nothing of value was lost."

More details to follow as the situation develops."

You might like to add this to the AnonIB article over at ED. I'd do it myself, but you B& me for being funnier than you. Ciao, your evil twin, FailcycGuy (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story bro, who cares about anonIB? Oh yeah, you, lol. Also it's funny because you care so much about me, and every time you talk to me I have almost forgotten who you are ^_^ -- Zaiger_talkplx 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message

lol oh u HerroLink 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 76.6.33.95 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I really like your edits, do you have experience from other wikis? --♣thayora♣ 00:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Linux distribution. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. Sudo Ghost 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! You can't block me, so please don't make petty threats you can't back up. I understand Wikipedia is serious business and my edit was not a joke. Don't leave stupid templates on my talk page, i know the rules, idiot. --Zaiger (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker's Law

To answer your question, there has never been any article at Bunker's Law on Wikipedia. I think you may have been thinking of some other wiki. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Homophobia"?

Hey, could you please reply to my question I asked here? --Conti|✉ 08:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I would rather you took your hate elsewhere and left me alone, please. --Zaiger (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me rephrase that: Either back up your allegations or retract them, or I will block you. I'm specifically referring to this and this edit. --Conti|✉ 17:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. Cupco has been harassing and accusing myself and other homosexual editors all week. If you block me I will personally go to Jimbo Wales himself and have your sysop flag removed, not to mention the media. If he agrees to leave me out of his dramamongering I will discontinue referring to him as a homophobe, but I will not retract my statements. --Zaiger (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you one more time to provide diffs for your accusations of homophobia. You are of course free to contact Jimbo and whomever else over this. --Conti|✉ 19:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never asked me for diffs. I just gave you a very good reason why I feel that he is what I said he was. I also feel that you are highly partial and have a huge conflict of interest regarding this situation, therefor due to your emotional connection I think that you are likely not in the position to make the decision to block me when I already answered your question. You cannot change the requirements after the fact. I will say that I have no proof of what I called him and and that I will not call him that again. That should be a perfectly acceptable compromise, bullying me into lying and saying something I do not believe isn't going to help anyone. Wikipedia is not censored. --Zaiger (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to back up your accusations. There are various ways to do so, and you didn't do any of them yet. Anyhow, I've started a thread about this over at WP:ANI. Feel free to comment, of course. --Conti|✉ 21:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

=

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. Since the user in question who had a problem with me has been blocked infinitely as a sockpuppet and troll, could we just put this behind us and unblock me? It is clear that I was being instigated, though that doesn't excuse my behavior. I do apologize and will retract my statement against the banned user if need be. I am a very long time Wikipedia user and this is my only account, as proven by an SPI. I have not made any other accounts or edits since I was blocked, and that can also be backed up by a checkuser. I would just like my account back, I like having all my accounts have my last name, it is easier for people to find me. Please take into consideration that Cupco was blocked after I was for being outed as a sockpuppeteer and known Wikipedia troublemaker, I am neither of those things. Thank you.--Zaiger (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

what I see here is you trying again to blame someone else for your own problems. Yes, Cupco turned out to be bad news and has now been thrown out. No, that does not mean that you are automatically pardoned for your own bad behavior. Here is the question I think we would all like an answer to: are you here to help build an encyclopedia? If so, what would you do if unblocked to help out? I ask this because I just checked your contributions. You have made eight article edits so far this year, and thirteen last year. That is the full extent of your article contributions. instead of going on about what you won't do I think the community would like to know what you intend to do instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 12 October 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.

For reference for the reviewing admin, the thread that led to Zaiger's block can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#User:Zaiger_and_baseless_claims_of_homophobia. --Conti|✉ 17:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I answered that in my original ban appeal. I am here to build an encyclopedia and I continue to want to complete that goal. --Zaiger (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

It's been almost 4 years. There should be no reason why I cannot be unblocked. Zaiger (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked on a trial basis, and if there's any disruption, the block will be reinstated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you were blocked? Also, what articles do you want to edit? PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for disruptive editing and calling whatever his name was a homophobe, and I don't want to edit anything specifically. I'd just like to correct grammar and such. --Zaiger (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens:- would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even three years. @PhilKnight: I'm fine with a trial unblock, though, provided that any disruption means that the block gets reinstated. T. Canens (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I counted wrong, three years not four. So am I to be unblocked? You can block me again if I screw up but I do not intend to abuse my Wikipedia privileges. --Zaiger (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were unblocked nearly a month ago.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thank you. Nobody mentioned it so I thought it was still being discussed amongst the sysops, I guess I should have checked the block log. --Zaiger (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol whoops I just noticed the template. Thanks! --Zaiger (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you should be all set. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: New helper policy

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}[reply]