User talk:AS92813

September 2013[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, AS92813, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, AS92813, and welcome to Wikipedia's deletion process! Thank you for your contributions. As a newcomer, it may be very helpful for you to read WP:42. You may also want to read Wikipedia's deletion policy, as well as the pages describing the articles for deletion process, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion. Remember that deletion debates are not votes, and reasons matter, especially reasons relating to the central content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not, and to the consensual community guidelines for biographies, corporations, music, and fiction. Also remember that deletion is not always the answer to a bad article. Feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you have any questions. Again, welcome! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:AS92813. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Calectasia browneana[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GILO A&E⇑ 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--AS92813 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)== Tommy Oliver ‎ == If your intention was to nominate this article for deletion, you've not completed the process - there is no AfD template on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump:. The article is now tagged. AS92813 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

I have blocked this account for evading the block I placed on 174.236.0.0/16. Please see User talk:Callanecc/Archive 9#174.236.68.115 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 February 2014 (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).

AS92813 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The range in question is for mobile phones. Run a WHOIS and you'll see the IPs belong to Verizon Wireless. #The activity reported happened nearly a year ago, IPs change hands from time to time, so there is no way to prove that activity was my doing. It only proves they originated from the same IP. #the user has a long history of warring with other editors and has recently been blocked. It's clear he'll do anything to have his way. He attempted to have an AFD deleted and was warned by AndyTheGrump for removing comments at wT:AFD

Decline reason:

QUACK! You seem to know a lot about the wiki for a brand new account, no? I'm a VZW customer as well, had the same IP for a long time. SQL ^{Query me!} 09:29, 17 February 2014 (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.

@AndyTheGrump:: See this. User clearly has a habit of using WP:DUCK to out people he doesn't like dealing with. AS92813 (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also warned by AndyTheGrump for removing comments at WT:AFD. AS92813 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, AS92813 has evaded his block by editing as 174.252.1.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 174.236.98.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It is also highly likely that this user is a sockpuppet of banned users Don't Feed the Zords and BuickCenturyDriver as his only edits before this weekend were to the Survivor contestant AFDs that were frequent targets of that user in 2013.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also evaded as 174.252.2.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who posted the same text to List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes as {{subst:USERNAME}}. {{subst:USERNAME}} has also removed my attempt at leaving this note for administrators.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

AS92813 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

if the reason for block was having more than one account, the I will choose one account and edit from that account only

Decline reason:

Oh dear, where do I start? You lied and lied and lied again about using multiple accounts, and then eventually admitted to having used 2: [1], but you still pretend it's only those two, evidently thinking we are all stupid. You use the bizarre reasoning the that one other account that you admit to was created before this one was blocked as a reason why it wasn't used for block-evasion, despite the fact that you edited with it while this account was blocked. You evidently don't have much idea what is likely to lead to an unblock. No, you have been thoroughly disruptive over and over again, and you have been thoroughly dishonest over and over again. I could easily have declined this unblock request first time, but instead invited you to make a comment on issues that gave me doubts, to give you a chance to expel those doubts. So, did you take the opportunity? On the contrary, both on this account and on another one you made yet more ridiculous and disingenuous statements that surely must have been obviously going to lead to the request being declined. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there is no point in having a user account any further. It's much safer to just use an IP. AS92813 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2014 (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 reason for the block is not " having more than one account", it is using accounts to evade blocks. You have used this account to evade blocks, and during the current block on this account you have used another account to evade that block too. I think that you had better comment on those facts if you want to be unblocked. Also, can you give a list of all the accounts you have used? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this account was created 5 months ago. Before that I only used IP. The second account Presbitow was created before this was blocked so there was no evasion. I really can't be blamed for every edit that comes from the 174.xx.xx.xx network, can I? AS92813 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]