173.61.77.220

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Lakewood BlueClaws. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok 173.61.77.220 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Bradenton Marauders, you may be blocked from editing.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

173.61.77.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Phantoms007". The reason given for Phantoms007's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:DUCK sockpuppet of [[User:Hersheybear

• Blocking administrator: Djsasso (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Autoblock is working as designed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

173.61.77.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Abusing multiple accounts

• Blocking administrator: Djsasso (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: If you are not going to provide any reason for unblocking, then we will not entertain any of your unblock requests. Moreover, this IP is now directly blocked for evasion. –MuZemike 02:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I Don't Like Being Stalked, Period!

This block is total nonsense and this needs to stop immediately. I revised the Titans article to a plan and simple article. This is one of the reasons why wikipedia is loosing contributors. I don't want to be stalked anymore. Also, there was nothing wrong with the Charlotte Checkers article either and it was changed again for no reason.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I Don't Like Being Stalked 173.61.77.220 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

You have been abusing multiple accounts and IPs to try and get your way on those articles. That is not how Wikipedia works, and if you continue to fail to understand (as you still are now), then you will remain blocked. –MuZemike 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lethal weapon that discourages people from supporting their team. Wikipedia was a website for reliable information. Now, it is not.

That's only according to you. From what I have seen on your original talk page, other editors have tried to help you out. You are not going to convince any of us to unblock you if you continue to flaunt your massive inferiority complex at everyone. You were blocked because you were using multiple accounts as stated above. If you cannot address that, then I'm afraid that you will remain to not edit. –MuZemike 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who hersheybearsfan is. He said he retired, but I didn't.

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DJSasso (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Santa Cruz Warriors, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't cause any harm to the Titans article. I updated the info box and added the new owners at the top of the article. I didn't even change the word team to franchise in the article. You said that I can do useful edits that is not speculation and I followed that guideline, but you still blocked me. Instead of saying that I can make useful edits, how about you just tell me the truth which is- "I don't want you to edit on Wikipedia anymore. You are a bad influence to Wikipedia and its community." I want the truth and not lies DJSasso. This block this time is nonsense. No wonder why schools don't want their students to use Wikipedia as a source.

Decline reason:

This IP is blocked for block evasion; you'll need to address that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Is this what you want me to write (like a little kid)- I'm very sorry for sockpuppeting and it will never happen again. Is that what you want Jpgordon.

Decline reason:

We are not going to unblock an IP address in order to let you evade a blocks on accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

It would do as a starting point. But you still will need to request unblock through your primary account.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Which one? I don't like the Hersheybearsfan user name and I'm never using that user name again.173.61.77.220 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see that is your primary account, and the only one which stands any chance at all of being unblocked; sockpuppets are virtually never unblocked. If you achieve an unblock, about which I make no comment, you can change your username.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---