82.13.194.47

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (82.13.194.47) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to MyMaths have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2019

Hello, I'm Jackfork. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mexico–United States barrier have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jackfork (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2019

Hello, I'm Gaelan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Me at the zoo—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Gaelan 💬✏️ 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Me at the zoo. — Smuckola(talk) 18:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 11 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

My block had expired, so I decided to edit. If you did not want me to edit Wikipedia, you could have just indefinitely blocked me.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not making useless edits nor vandalizing pages (I was not at the beggining but that’s not the point) After I discussed with OhNoItsJamie about the me at the zoo edits, I gave up on my argument and let my block expire. Since then, I have not tried to edit the page, and have had any of my edits reverted. If you look at the me at the zoo edit history, you will find other accounts. I assure you that the edits were not by me on a VPN, another accounts or using friends or family accounts. I feel as if the admin felt I was partly responsible for this, as I did not get banned immediately after I made my first edit after the ban. As previously mentioned, I felt that it was pointless to both argue about the edit further, or add it again as I felt that whatever things go on wiki is the admin’s choice, even if I don’t agree at all or I argue with them. What I think happened is that people have heard about this incident more, and have decided to add information, believing like me that it is useful. This caused the page to be stopped from editing. My IP address blocked expired, when I made the next edit (not on me at the zoo and neither were any of the others), I forgot that this IP was even blocked. My edits are fine, except for the me at the zoo, and I should not be blocked anymore as it was only a lone incident.82.13.194.47 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Please address this, and only this, in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not know the reason of my edits being reverted, so I kept adding them back. When my account got blocked, I assumed that the admin did not check my edits properly and thought I was vandalizing or making bad good faith edits. So I used my other account to edit it. I did not see this at the time as me evading my block, as I assumed that the admin were not reading it properly. I now now that I should not do this, and I have not made any edits related to me at the zoo. Also I want to know why I did not get banned immediately from Wikipedia again after the block on this IP address expired. I have reason to believe that Ohnitsjamie has believed me to been adding information to me at the zoo wiki page. That is why I think I got blocked again, even though I had no involment in edits about the hacking of that video after I got banned.82.13.194.47 (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am not sure what to make of someone who, finding that their account is blocked from editing, uses another account, and does not see that as evading a block. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:10, 18 November 2019 (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'll notice that WP:MEATPUPPETRY is included in the block reasons. I suspected that you were involved, either directly or indirectly via discussions on a different wiki. I've reduced the block duration to a week; in the meantime, I suggest that you get word out to your friends that further attempts will result in immediate blocks for all involved. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Lol, they are not my friends. I found out this information when I decided to watch Me at the zoo so I could make a meme out of it. I then saw what happened (the hacking) and found another Youtuber (JT) talking about it. I decided to update this wiki page with this new information, which is when I got blocked. What I think happened is that people, either saw the video and added their own information, or that they went back to look at the video and found out what happened. It is a fairly moderately sized channel (around 500k subscribers) so maybe some of the people who watched him had the same idea as me. I think somebody either has to be the uploader of the video, or have no life to ask their friends to edit a wiki page for them. If you also read the information, you will find that it differs factually from what I said. Someone wrote that subxthank (or whatever it said) to be the hacker while I called it an internet meme. I don’t understand why you would think I would be behind this as well, as I would not be stupid enough to get my account banned indefinitely. I use Wikipedia a lot and like fixing the content. 82.13.194.47 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I will make a basic observational comment, as one of the users who reverted and reported this, for future admins. The original offending action was the WP:CIR WP:FANCRUFT content at Me at the zoo, and the ensuing edit warring with increasingly hostile and aggressive all-caps edit summary, which is not WP:AGF content or behavior. Then in the unblock request, the user claims ignorance (then and still now) of the patently unencyclopedic nature of his content, which had actually been clarified in our edit summaries which went ignored. I'd believe that this was such a momentarily infamous event that it's a coincidence that lots of people dogpiled on the dumb bandwagon, but I have no position on meatpuppetry. But furthermore, "I am not making useless edits" is false, as there have been several edits from this IP which are unrelated to Me at the zoo which have been reverted as patently useless. Lots of time has been wasted for editors in a case of WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTBLOG WP:CIR WP:N WP:RS WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:DONTGETIT, and we don't need a crusade for "fixing" things and covering trivial current events. Thank you for doing this, Ohnoitsjamie. — Smuckola(talk) 21:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Holiday (Green Day song). Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Complicated (Avril Lavigne song). Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I'm Nnadigoodluck. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Oscar Martinez (The Office)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

---