User talk:64.149.204.158

Warning

If you continue with posts and edit summaries as here, on Yanksox's talk page, and the trouble-making post on my talk page you will be blocked. I saw the posts in question and LinaMishima was entirely correct. Tyrenius 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. Psyche? Tyrenius 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Hates Chris

hahahaha me a trouble maker??? You wish! And judging by your two different talkpages you seem to be getting a lot of warnings. It appears to me that you're the posterboy for hypocrisy. TripleH1976 19:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

-- Tyrenius 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelyboy

You said: "I went through Lonelyboy's history. He made some good contributions. You should be in trouble for turning around and blocking him the way you did. It seems you had no real basis. The Hyrbid and Yandman both agreed to allow Lonelyboy to come back. Lonelyboy said he had only used that name because when he used his original name he was autoblocked. The two agreed not to tell anyone and were blackmailing him. The first moment at which there was an agreement, they told you and you blocked Lonelyboy. If you were blocking Lonelyboy for using a different name, you might as well block Hybrid and Yandman for covering it up and using it as blackmail to try to control him. It seems you three are working in conspiracy and I plan to report you. After looking over Lonelyboy's edits, they were all in good faith and there was nothing to insitigate a block. His last comment is after you blocked him without going into the situation. I'm sorry but the three of you are working together and need to be reported immediately."

You seem to be confused. I have never blocked Lonelyboy (talk · contribs), nor has anyone else from what I can see. Perhaps you are confused about the account and maybe you mean that editor under a different account name. Please note, however, that creating a new account to get around a block is abusive and grounds for an immediate block of the new account and a reset or an extension of the block on the old account. --Yamla 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "It intend for there to be justice for everyone at wikipedia. I am glad I saw Hybrid's making an irrelevant remark on the Undertaker talk page. It was just out of nowhere at the bottom of the page. I check into Lonelyboy's history and see he has worked hard on editing all of his pages and then there is this christian debate and Hybrid and Yandman began picking on him and tell you and you immediately block him then say you didn't. He never uttered death threats on December 1 2006 as far as I can see :" Scroll up on your page where you write: I have blocked this IP address for 6 months. We can't block IP addresses indefinitely but given that this user has uttered death threats and claims he has every intention of continuing to attack the Wikipedia, the block seems reasonable. --Yamla 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that Lonelyboy was a blatant sockpuppet for Hungrygirl (talk · contribs), an account indefinitely blocked. As such, all edits by Lonelyboy were by definition abusive and the account has also been blocked. You didn't claim that I had blocked an IP address, you claimed I blocked Lonelyboy (talk · contribs), which I had not until I investigated. As to the death threats, please see this edit, which the user refused to retract. --Yamla 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "He mentioned to Hybrid that he kept getting autoblocked when he used his ordinary name and Hybrid and Yandman seemed to understand that. Insteado of giving him proper and advice, they agreed to not telling anyone until they both found a problem with the user. I see the abusive edits were made a month ago and he was finished with his ban. But if you're blocking him for sockpuppeting anyway, you might as well block your friends Yandman and Hybrid since they were in on it. They only told you because they had a disagreement which did not warrant a ban. Lonelyboy and them were arguing about christianity. Lonelyboy was already banned because Hybrid and Yandman and him recognize it in their disputes if you were paying attention"

The block on Hungrygirl was indefinite. Any sockpuppets are to be blocked on sight. Only the IP address was blocked for a month but the editor is not welcome to contribute to the Wikipedia any more, even after the one-month block on the IP address expired. We do not welcome people who vandalise the Wikipedia and make death threats. If you can find a specific instance of Yandman or Hybrid violating Wikipedia policy, please feel free to report it (including a link to the specific edit that you believe violates Wikipedia policy). Your accusations so far have been of a general nature; I'll also note that it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to report someone (or fail to report someone) for violating Wikipedia policy. --Yamla 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We only got him blocked after he started trolling. We decided to give him a second chance at being a good editor; we were not hiding him. If I had been trying to hide him, I would have blanked his talk page and mine. We only got him blocked after he stopped being a good editor, and started trolling in his debates. -- T H L R 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.