Tintinthereporter226

This is Tintinthereporter226's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Second unblock request

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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).

Tintinthereporter226 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting that the block notice stating that I am a sock of Pohjamadesse1 be removed. I am NOT requesting a complete unblock. I am not a sock of that account, and, from looking at that user's contributions, have a significantly different behavior to that user. I also have a different IP address to them. Being in a similar area does not equate to actually being that user. I do, however, admit to usage of the Stanmarsh97 account to create unnecessary noticeboard discussions about myself, and I understand that was wrong. It is clear that the CU data would clearly align with that and does not need to be checked again. Regards, Tintinthereporter226.

Decline reason:

Confirmed block evasion, and removing TPA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2023 (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.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 19:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I've taken the liberty of restoring your unblock request from your archive. I realise that was an automated bot - if you want the request summarily closed we can do that, but it doesn't belong in an archive. I also slightly adjusted the bot parameters to prevent it happening again. Allow me to append some details, so you can consider how much of everyone's time you're wasting and reset your approach. As I said in a comment which you wanted to hide, you've already admitted to using the Pohjamades account. The checkuser evidence had already told me as much, as I indicated in your block notice. There are more details which indicate something far from "have a significantly different behavior to that user". Let's look at regional radio stations. Your first substantive edit was to improve France Bleu Breizh Izel, not exactly globally known, which was largely built by Pohjamadesse1[1] Tintinthereporter226? There's loads of Tintin at User:Pohjamadesse1. I've taken the liberty of deleting the revisions from User:Pohjamadesse, in your own interests, btw. Do you enjoy chess, jazz, and have a dog? It's all right there. You're a political scientist, calculate the odds of all that. Not a sock pfft. If you want to appeal this block at some time in the future, you'll need to own it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Addressing these concerns:

• It is correct that the first substantial edit I did was to the Breizh Izel article. I had created this account on Wikipedia because I discovered that reference, and thought, "Maybe Wikipedia could do with some more information about this, since there's a citation tag on it."

• There may be "loads of Tintin at User:Pohjamadesse1", but Tintin is a globally known and universal franchise. There are several users named Tintin or some variations, for instance. It's not unreasonable that another account may share that interest.

• I never claimed to be a political scientist on this account - claiming an interest in politics is not such a claim.

I hope this appropriately addresses your concerns. I will try to respond in a timely manner to any further queries.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 12:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, I tried. Should you ever want to turn over a new leaf and become a productive editor, which is different from burying ones head in the sand, then I'm sure we'd be pleased to see that happen (in the future I might just be your best chance of getting unblocked). Previous advice applies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This comment is neither helpful or something which refutes the comments I raised. Tintinthereporter226 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, is it possible for me to have access to my sandbox page? I want to help create something if I'm unblocked. Thanks. Tintinthereporter226 20:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Global lock

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Leonidlednev, there is not a block evasion issue. I understand that you would raise it since it has been mentioned, but I would just like to confirm that to you that I am not a sockpuppet. Thank you. Tintinthereporter226 17:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Email response

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello again. In reply to your email, a block is a block is a block. You are not permitted to edit, except, perhaps, to appeal your block (in a non-timewasting manner). How do you appeal if you don't have talk page access? Well, firstly this is all explained in one of the links I've previously provided. Secondly, your other account, the one you'd "personally prefer to request an unblock from" still has talk page access. Don't squander that as you have done with this talk page. I've previously offered what I think is extensive guidance about WP:OFFER, and even global locks if you find that affecting you. Take your time, listen carefully to what I've said, and don't try to blag us. We've heard it all before, and very few of us are into wasting our free time. TLDR; read what I've said. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply