User talk:Freakee73

Welcome!

Hello, Freakee73, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Just wanted to drop you a line. What Special:Contributions/98.151.17.229 did wasn't vandalism. That IP was removing unsourced edits that violated the Biography of Living Persons policy. The other IP, which was inserting those BLP violated, was indeed blocked for that activity. There's no need to jump to conclusions about who is behind an IP address. In the future, if you find someone committing vandalism in bad-faith, feel free to leave them a warning rather than reporting right away, if they merit it. Again, if you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed marriages as Ohio court records as documented, the third was in Los Angeles, documentation can be found as to this also, hence a triad. This is clearly a mediocre talent and does not merit a Wikipedia page for his own self promotion and if you indeed trace the ip address that is responsible for the undoing of factual information, you will find that it leads back to the subjects address in Van Nuys, California. The subject is editing his own Wikipedia page and thus negating the entire premise that Wikipedia stands for. All information cannot, and should not be positive, else this is simply an advertisement. What is the import of a Video blogger to begin with? Furthermore this advertisement is written as if Mr. Kontras has invented the concept. I will search endlessly for documentation as to who really did, and what the significance of that is.Charles F Groves (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Adam Kontras[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Adam Kontras. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[edit]

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).

Freakee73 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was bringing up legitimate concerns about the viability of a page, and may have gone a bit overboard, however my concerns about the page were picked up by an administrator and the merits of my original, although incorrectly formated deletion request, are now being discussed. In the time after that I was attacked by the subject of the Wikipedia entry as a tactic to misdirect the attention from the subjects pages' pending deletion. It appears to be working, most of the comments against Adam Kontras page, appear to have been moved to a more noticable discussion board by someone that appears somehow allied with Adam Kontras, and is the user that has written most of Adam Kontras' page that is being reviewed for deletion, I do feel that I should be allowed to be part of the debate, and that I should have not been targeted by Adam Kontras and his Wikipedia allies for pointing out things that are now being debated. I feel that I am vindicated somewhat for this articles existance and viability being challenged by others now. Please review the actions against myself and against the fairness of the debate on Adam Kontras' page.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but your unblock request must address the reasons for your block and not point the finger at other editors. Please explain why you were blocked and how your behavior will change to prevent future incidents. TN X Man 13:54, 12 April 2010 (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.

Unblock request 2[edit]

{{unblock|1=I was blocked for aggressive editing, that appears now to have been accurate, but I did not go through the proper Wikipedia guidlines. I have been studying the guidelines and Wiki Techniques for editing and shall adhere to the rules in the future.Charles F Groves (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Conditional unblock, with editing ban as detailed below and at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community

Request handled by: -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Charles, you appear to have a personal vendetta against Mr Kontras (as per this edit. Would you be willing to accept a ban from editing articles relating to Mr Kontras (whether with Kontras as the subject of the article or otherwise)? What articles/subjects would you like to work on instead? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vendetta is entirely personal, but I would like to point out that I was the one that brought his site being a personal biography to further himself, and inspired it being placed in AFD status when cooler heads agreed with me... but alas, my interests lie in the field of AerospaceCharles F Groves 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you quick reply! Aerospace is a large area, so there is plenty of constructive editing that can be done there by you!

However, can I just ask for clarification: would you be willing to accept a ban from editing articles relating to Mr Kontras (whether with Kontras as the subject of the article or otherwise)?

Please note:

Should you be willing to accept such a ban, I will put this block on hold (you will still be blocked, but it will be shown as on hold), and ask for the blocking admin (PeterSymonds) to come here and make a comment
Should you accept such a ban, this may be listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. Should you fail to adhere to the ban, your account would likely be indefinitely blocked.
Should you accept such a ban, any attempt to get around the ban by either using another account or by editing without being logged in would likely cause your account(s) to be indefinitely blocked.

Sorry if this seems a little heavy-handed, but I feel that it is only fair that you understand what is meant by such a ban! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As my point has been made, I hereby accept said ban on editing anything related to the subject of Adam Kontras Charles F Groves 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am now placing the block on hold, and will contact the blocking admin (PeterSymonds) and ask him to comment here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There is actually an article on ferret legging that I support and could contribute to. I have personal knowledge on the subject. never participated,,, lol.Charles F Groves 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Having discussed it with PeterSymonds, I am going to conditionally unblock you. For the avoidance of doubt, here are the details of the topic ban:

You are banned from editing articles relating to Mr Kontras (whether with Kontras as the subject of the article or otherwise). If you fail to adhere to the ban, your account will be indefinitely blocked with no further warnings. Any attempt to get around the ban by either using another account or by editing without being logged will cause your account(s) to be indefinitely blocked with no further warnings.

These will be listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Adam Kontras[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Adam Kontras. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as per your editing restrictions above, you must not participate in the AfD discussion.

This is just a reminder, as I'm sure that you will not even consider doing so! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would love to, I shall of course refrain...Charles F Groves 22:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Martin (football)[edit]

I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Martin (Football) where you supported deleting this article; the discussion was duly closed as delete. However, several of the deletion arguments expressly noted that the deletion was only because Mr. Martin had not played at a significantly high level. He has just started his first game for Southampton FC and accordingly I have undeleted the article. Please renominate it if you feel it should still be deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2010 (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).

Freakee73 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

We have been through all of this before, I admitted in the past to making vindictive edits, based from my IP addresses which I have access, that being two of them and this name (freakee73) I appologized to the community and have only made edits from this screenname, constructive edits if i do say so myself. I have reviewed the case against me for blocking as a sockpuppet and I agree that this name and two of the IP addresses are me, and perhaps that is enough for a block. The facts are, that I have only used this name (freakee73) since approximately 13 April, and I appologize once more for being disruptive. I have ho idea who the other users are on that accusation, looks to me like anouther of Mr Kontras' publicity stunts gone wrong. But I digress, this is apperantly about what I have done, which I have admitted in the past and agreed to be a productive editor, as I have been, I do not see why I have been blocked now. I did find a keylogger on my computer in mid March, so perhaps this is somehow related to that, but I personally have had absolutely nothing to do with edits outside of my user name that I am currently using since approx. 13 April, please review this and lift this block

Decline reason:

Oof. While I may sympathize with you, you're best off contacting a Checkuser via email. The circumstances here, if they are as you claim they are, are actually - and regrettably - exacerbated by the fact that this account is still potentially compromised and the fact that this is a CheckUser block, meaning they need to sign off on any unblock. There's just too much here that an administrator, by his lonesome, cannot confirm alone. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:52, 2 May 2010 (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.

I have received your email. Despite your claims to the contrary, Netitude (talk · contribs), a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of yours, edited the third Adam Kontras AfD on April 26. Moreover, with the Adam kontras (talk · contribs) account, you impersonated the article's subject. If you have any questions regarding the checkuser results, you may wish to contact Jpgordon (talk · contribs), who ran the check. Tim Song (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very simply not that user, but I should not expect anyone to really investigate and see what is really going on here! Charles F Groves 01:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)