User talk:108.41.81.126

March 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jericho High School has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jericho High School was changed by 108.41.81.126 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.900701 on 2018-03-27T02:33:49+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Neptune (mythology). Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Neptune (mythology) was changed by 108.41.81.126 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854478 on 2018-03-27T02:47:24+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Evan Goldberg 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Why did you cite a nonexistent tweet with the title "Lisa's ATM code is 6969"? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I checked the web archive back to when the tweet existed in 2016, and that’s what the tweet was 108.41.81.126 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Naya Rivera, you may be blocked from editing. Stating a fact about production that is cited elsewhere in the article, as standard, is not speculation nor inappropriate. If you are reading something else into it and don't like it, that's you unable to understand the purpose of the note column. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s so factual what’s the 2021 episode being referenced? There is none because there are no 2021 episodes. And please learn what vandalism is., because what I removed was done in good faith. 108.41.81.126 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template is for disruptive editing; it warns that continuing to do is vandalism, even if you think you're doing good, the result is the same. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing good, especially as you push forward a false narrative to claim things about people while openly ignoring what they've said and what they've asked. You refuse to address my concerns in order to talk down to and berate them for looking for answers 108.41.81.126 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Children's and Family Emmy Award for Outstanding Children's or Family Viewing Series, you may be blocked from editing. We have a specific process (WP:AFD) for proposing the deletion of articles. Boldly blanking and redirecting for the purposes of pushing your opinion without consensus is unconstructive and disruptive. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what happened here. It’s not about my opinion but a previously established consensus 108.41.81.126 (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Apologize[edit]

Hey, I'm sorry about what I did was blocked by sockpuppet and trying to removed edit such as "Toonturama", I promise I'll become a very better person when I was expiring next year. Thanks. 2600:100C:B24B:3290:B8CA:B5DA:FA42:87A9 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Back on the Record with Bob Costas (January 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by EchidnaLives was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Back on the Record with Bob Costas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know. I have done as requested 108.41.81.126 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 108.41.81.126! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding shows to "List of [X Year] American television debuts"[edit]

I noticed that you had reverted a large number of edits of mine, where I added shows that aired on Disney+, Paramount+, and HBO Max to various "List of [X Year] American television debuts". Allow me to explain my thought process behind adding them

I was referring to the following pages (List of Disney+ original programming, List of HBO Max original programming, and List of Paramount+ original programming), and if a show mentioned there was absent in the "List of [X Year] American television debuts" page, I added it (though I ignored tables for non-English language programming, continuations, and co-productions). Similarly, if a show mentioned on the "TV Debuts by year" table, I investigated the show and removed it if it was a non-American production. In short, I was trying to put the various pages in synch with each other. I actually have a full list of un-synched shows on an excel sheet 194.80.233.40 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should’ve brought the sources used on those pages with you. I will also say, if the title is just the title and there’s no disambiguating parenthetical, you don’t need a piped link. The italics can go on the outside of the internal link 108.41.81.126 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages didn't have sources for all of the shows, and I'd rather add more information to one page than delete info from another.

As for italicization, I used visual editing followed by Ctrl+I, so I don't know how it would turn up in wikitext 194.80.233.40 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pokémon (TV series), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re not using the credits, then that entire sentence doesn’t have a source, why are you picking and choosing which details to keep? 108.41.81.126 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dr. Phil (talk show), you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how this is what happened. It’s not original research. I think you are very much mistaken @Materialscientist. 108.41.81.126 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:CreecregofLife per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CreecregofLife. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 20:29, 9 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no legitimate evidence to these sockpuppetry allegations. BaldiBasicsFan has made extreme attacks on my character and wanted to get the person they were arguing with out of the way so they didn’t have to endure any pushback for their argument. Please take a look at Talk:Justin Roiland for the pertinent discussions. BaldiBasicsFan has a clear history of stoking arguments with other users, and his attempt to tie the people he clearly has personal biases against other users he’s had problems with shouldve never been taken seriously.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 9 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no legitimate evidence to these sockpuppetry allegations. BaldiBasicsFan has made extreme attacks on my character and wanted to get the person they were arguing with out of the way so they didn’t have to endure any pushback for their argument. Please take a look at Talk:Justin Roiland for the pertinent discussions. BaldiBasicsFan has a clear history of stoking arguments with other users, and his attempt to tie the people he clearly has personal biases against other users he’s had problems with shouldve never been taken seriously. I was never notified I was under investigation. I was therefore never given the chance to properly defend myself under the same rules, instead only after I was blocked. WP:NOTTHEM should absolutely not apply here. How am I supposed to properly defend myself against accusations of sockpuppeting without discussing how the accusations came to be, exploring motive for false accusations and bad-faith arguing from the accuser? I am a separate individual who was targeted in bad faith and therefore accusations of sockpuppeting cannot stand. If you're trying to get me to change my ways, what ways are those? What is there for me to improve upon if the accusations are false and don't actually reflect the situation?

Decline reason:

This is even worse than the first request. See WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked for your actions, not those of others, and that's all you should discuss. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 9 February 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.

Even a brief review of the edits made by this IP make it clear that you are the same person as the named master. The clock on any standard offer is reset.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment proves I was not blocked for my actions, I was blocked for who I'm alleged to be. Therefore my block is under illegitimate circumstances. I wasn't blocked for my actions, I was blocked because I was accused of being a sockpuppet. I did not make those accusations, other people did. How am I supposed to discuss this block without discussing the action of the accusation? You are supposed to assume good faith. I was not once given a good faith assumption. I am not a sockpuppet. If I was really blocked for my actions, what would those actions be?--108.41.81.126 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for violations of WP:SOCK, as noted in the block log and in the block message on this page. The editors familiar with your history believe you're evading your block, the admin reviewing the SPI evidence believes you are evading your block and, after reviewing your contributions, I believe that you are evading your block. Good faith doesn't mean admins should ignore the blatantly obvious because you deny the connection when caught. This line of reasoning is nonsense and will get you nowhere. If you continue in the same vein, don't expect a reply. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belief isn’t proof. The SPI evidence doesn’t prove anything. “The editors familiar with my history” means they’re not actually familiar at all and only claim to be if they can’t prove their claims. None of the things pointed to as evidence is evidence. There is no violation. 108.41.81.126 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Six months today is August 8. I'd suggest that you drop it now, and pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER from your original account at some time after that date. Further block evasion will reset the clock again. OhNoitsJamie< /span> ^Talk

There’s no such thing as “further block evasion”. I did not commit block evasion. I can’t commit block evasion. Six months from today is six months since I was accused of block evasion without the chance to defend myself before being placed under the ruleset you implement on blocked people regarding how they defend themselves. If you ever wanted to be convinced you were wrong, which hasn’t been disputed, I would’ve been unblocked on the first appeal because no evidence was provided.--108.41.81.126 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Back on the Record with Bob Costas[edit]

Hello, 108.41.81.126. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Back on the Record with Bob Costas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Back on the Record with Bob Costas[edit]

Hello, 108.41.81.126. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Back on the Record with Bob Costas".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Thank you Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.