Everyman21

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Code Lyoko, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lamborghini man (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I did give you a source. Everyman21 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tara Duncan: The Animated Series has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJK6yMyFJog, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hso8g0_E8o (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Code Lyoko, you will be blocked from editing. Lamborghini man (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Block

Please appeal your block under your original account. — Jake Wartenberg 02:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew I wouldn't be believed under MN44. I waited a while, and wanted to make a fresh start. I've begun adding sources and trying to bring things to the talk page. I've left behind incivility. |decline=Considering that your block was made permanent because of abusing multiple accounts, it was not a wise idea to create another account and dive into the exact same mess that got you blocked in the first place. If you want a fresh start, make it a fresh start, and stay away from what got you in trouble in the first place. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:20, 1 October 2009 (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).

Everyman21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't see how this one was abusive. A couple of the ones I was accused of weren't myself. I'd appreciate another chance.

Decline reason:

Please request unblocks on your main account, per WP:SOCK. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2009 (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 was not "the exact same mess". Everyman21 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2009 (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).

Everyman21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is my "main account" now. Everyman21 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, the account that triggered the original block is considered the main account for sockpuppetry purposes.  Sandstein  08:59, 2 October 2009 (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).

Everyman21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For whatever reason, I am unable to access it. Can't we resolve this here?

Decline reason:

I guess we could, if (a) there were a good reason that you were unable to access your primary account, and (b) it was clear that you were going to be editing Wikipedia appropriately and that an unblock was a good idea. But (a) there isn't, and (b) it isn't. In fact, before you were even identified as a sockpuppet, this account was getting warnings for the same things that made the original block necessary in the first place. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (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).

Everyman21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

a) I don't even know why I'm not able to. b) I will be and was. The warnings weren't even proper warnings for things I even did. I didn't commit 3RR, I wasn't edit warring, I was trying to bring a discussion to the talk page. I've improved, I can promise you that.

Decline reason:

This is getting out of hand. You are a confirmed sock, and you have been properly instructed and reviewed by others above. I am also protecting this talk page so that you discontinue your disruption.

---

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.

Hiberniantears (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)}}