User talk:Thewikiguru1

Welcome

Hello, Thewikiguru1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. 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 leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 04:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Thewikiguru1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding section removals

I restored the IP's content removal as I didn't realise that the section was unsourced. Please be careful next time when dealing with section removals. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, please

This is not CSD:G1 or CSD:G2. Basically, if it's English words in sentences, it's not nonsense. If anything, that page is CSD:G11. Also, please stop reverting the creator's edits to his user and talk pages. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, please give reasons for reverting edits like this. That's not blatant vandalism, though it did mess up the grammar. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit- Mistake?

You reverted an edit I made to Psilocybin mushroom, noting that I'd added "incorrect information". I didn't actually add any information- I just tagged the first sentence of the "As medicine" section with ^[who?]. It begins with "Some people have been asking for medical investigation", which seemed like a pretty straightforward violation of the manual on weasel words. I can go ahead and search the source for a clearer definition of just who the sentence is referring to, but I don't want to make any further edits to the page until I clear this up with you. Thanks, --Kinglycitrus (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check thoroughly before reverting

You reverted an edit I made to Michael Okpara University of Agriculture. It was a correction to a caption. The picture was a deadlink from a previous edit(not mine) and needed to be re-uploaded. I worked on getting the caption right. User:ChikaOjiegbe 19:59, 23 September 2013 (GMT)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice job reverting vandalism this week! I've seen you all over my watchlist! You might benefit from the rollback right; if you want, I could nominate you. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: removing content from Killing Season

Uhhh . . . actually, I DID explain why. So I can't understand why you didn't bother to read my rather straight-forward explanation, nor can I understand why you felt the need to revert it back. But I'll repeat: It's a section heading with no actual section. All that's there is a link to a film portal, which is so generic that it hardly deserves an entire section heading. Again, it's worth repeating that I did explain this in the original edit, and it's in the history if you don't believe me. If you have an actual REASON to revert my edit, that's fine, I won't fight about it, but "you didn't explain why" is just plain old objectively wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.181 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demario Davis

I'm sorry I thought the info I put was going to get reverted or wasn't accurate enough. I wasn't trying to vandalize anything. I'm sorry again for not explaining that but thanks.2001:5B0:28FF:3EF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning removals

I believe that IPs are allowed to remove warnings from their pages, so there's no need to revert them when they do. See WP:BLANKING for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi, it's me again. I've nominated you for rollback at Wikipedia:RFP/R#User:Thewikiguru1. If you're interested, you can accept the nomination there. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edit(s)

Hi Thewikiguru1

You posted on my talk page and I would love to respond; It's true that I don't have an account on the English Wikipedia, but I do have one on another language. I didn't want to make an account for just this edit - which was, as you would have seen if you looked at the content (which you probably did not)- just vandalism. Next time I will make an account, because I do understand that ip-users normally aren't trustworthy, but please have a look at the stuff you restore... I think it would've saved you some time. As I read on your page now, I'm not the first person to state this. It's cool to have someone working this hard on Wikipedia, but please work throughely...

Furthermore, I do have one question; if I expect a vandalism-war to happen, who should I inform. This page ([MyMathLab]) was posted on [Reddit] in a thread about the worst biased wikipedia articles... With hunderds of thousands of people reading that, I don't think it's strange that the page is (semi)protected now, haha. 37.191.197.195 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Thewikiguru1#

i want to add a photo of me how can i do that pleas help me with that

Dana rihannadembo (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean up

thank you for your edits to the Pen Centre article here. You may not have noticed that you have capitalized several words incorrectly, and formatted a bunch of numbers incorrectly (see WP:MOSNUM). Please clean up your edit. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 19:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:MOSNUM. Numbers up to ten are spelled out in a sentence. We write "1970s", not "70's". We don't abbreviate months. Ground Zero | t 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Please do not issue more warnings when the editor has already stopped

Hello. Colour me confused, but I do not understand why you gave four escalated warnings to Reinavera (talk · contribs) after he or she had already stopped editing. Escalated warnings are only given if the editor has ignored the previous warning. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of your edits to User talk:80.249.52.132? They don't make sense to me. You removed previous warnings the IP had received and then added escalating warnings of your own after the IP had stopped. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why did you add four warnings in two minutes here: User talk:Literaryawards, after the account hadn't edited for an hour? Just add one warning at a time and see if they heed your advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Ruien

Thanks for patrolling new pages. This article was a subtle trap, worth watching out for when the article title differs from the contents, as here: it had been hijacked by a kid to write about himself, but underneath in the history was a quite different (if rather odd) article about a Japanese encyclopedia. I actually fell into the trap myself and deleted the article, before looking further and restoring it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating users

You need to stop posting messages like this, this, and this. You are impersonating another user each time you do by putting their signature on a message you post. Please stop doing this immediately. You can say "This account was blocked by XXX", but you should not be placing notices with their signatures attached. only (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why are you blanking legitimate questions? (And why are you adding blocked notices with admin's signatures?) --Jakob (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking talk pages

Users are allowed to blank or remove content from their own talk pages without interference. The cross-namespace redirects were a good catch, but it is often better to ignore a user once they are blocked (hence my lack of block notification). -- John Reaves 00:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' comments

what was the point of this edit? You're editing someone else's comment to change the image. Why? You should not be editing others' comments, especially for silly things like that. only (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Wizkid

Greetings Thewikiguru1. You recently reverted the edit a newly registered user made to the Wizkid article and undid your edit. I already left a message on User talk:STATicVapor's talk page and would appreciate your input as well as his. Here's the link to the discussion: Wizkid. versace1608 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring another editor's talk page message

Please don't change other editors' talk page messages. Even in the case of an unambiguous spelling mistake, it is rarely a good idea to correct another editor's talk page post, as it can be seen as picking an editor up for a mistake, which can be unwelcome. As for making a change from one accepted form to another that you personally prefer, as you did here, that is never acceptable. I knew perfectly well what I intended to write, and if I had wished to use the United States spelling, as opposed to the spelling used in most of the rest of the English speaking world, I would have done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Why did you sign my AIV report here, this is refactoring and I'd like a explanation for that. ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption block

You have four conversations on your page right now about you refactoring or signing as other users in inappropriate manners. I warned you that if you continued, you would be blocked for disruption. Because of the numerous times you've been told about it by three different users, and the fact that you still are doing it as evidenced by your refactoring at WP:AIV, I have blocked you for 24 hours. As always, blocks may be appealed through the user of {{unblock}}. Please do not continue this actions going forward. only (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2013 (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).

Thewikiguru1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am so sorry for what I've done, I will take a break from anti-vandal duties for a while. For now, I will make some minor edits to articles when needed at public places like public libraries, schools and dentist offices. I will also respond to edit requests for semi-protected pages. Occasionally, I might edit semi-protected articles constructively. I might also consider a wikibreak as well, although I will continue to read Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've extended this block to indefinite. Though it appears you've done a lot of good vandal fighting, recently the vandal you've been reverting has a much too close relationship with you, and appears to be working in concert with you. This is not acceptable, and combined with your other bad behavior (impersonating administrators, for example) you have a ton of explaining to do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:58, 30 December 2013 (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).

Thewikiguru1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm very truly sorry about my actions, I will not impersonate administrators again, I will make good, useful and constructive contributions instead. I will not do any vandalism ever again. Also, I might upload appropriate images when needed to Wikipedia. When unblocked, I will also respond to semi-protected pages edit requests as well. Once again, I'm very sorry for any inconvenience. I have regretted about what I've done, but once unblocked I will do good behavior instead. When not logged in, I have made good edits from other IP addresses that were not vandalism although there were a few false positives by ClueBot NG. I have already learned my lessons and they will not happen again. I will also not commit Sock puppetry ever again. I am also considering a clean start as well. I will also be careful next time. Here are the following evidence: *Why did you sign my AIV report here, this is refactoring and I'd like a explanation for that. ₪Stormmeteo Message 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (I had done it once while reporting an IP address when someone reported the same IP address. When someone reports the same IP address, I will not add a new report.) *Please don't change other editors' talk page messages. (I had changed the Ambox warning icon to Nuvola apps important icon, but I will not change icons such as "Please stop adding spam links" or "Please stop your disruptive editing" by other users like ClueBot NG again. I will leave the icons alone.) *You should not be editing others' comments (I have edited other's comments, but I will stop doing it and I will leave my own comments instead.) *You are impersonating another user each time you do by putting their signature on a message you post. (I have put their signature on a message I posted, I will stop doing it immediately.) *Do not issue more warnings when the editor has already stopped (When the editor had stopped after the "Please stop" messages, I issued more warnings. I will stop this right now.) *Comments from other editors (I did not respond to them, but I will respond to them when I get "You have new talk page messages" message.) Thank you. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After posting this unblock request you then evaded your block by editing as an IP, attempting to rationalize the block evasion in the conversation below. I don't believe that you understand the serious concerns that have been raised regarding your editing behaviour and have little faith that an unblock wouldn't just lead to more disruption. I believe that you would be best served by taking a substantial wikibreak and evaluating why you thought that editing in a duplicitous manner would be at all acceptable. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:34, 31 December 2013 (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 considered undoing my decline based on the additional conversation you were engaged in with JamesBWatson and jpgordon, but the more I read the more concerned I became. Even when asked flat out to be honest with regard to your good hand/bad hand actions you still blamed any possible connections to your IP address being reset; you only admitted the truth when confronted with irrefutable checkuser evidence. These aren't the actions of an editor who is truly sorry for the disruption they have caused, it's the actions of an editor who's sorry they got caught. As noted in my decline, I strongly suggest you take a wikibreak to contemplate what you can contribute to Wikipedia that doesn't involve being deceptive. It's not that I believe you can never be a good contributor, it's just that you need to regain the trust of the community; a future unblock request demonstrating honesty and insight regarding your actions (other than "I'm sorry, I won't do that again") will go a long way in achieving that trust.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any instance where you have replied to or addressed any of the numerous concerns that have posted here. Why do you not reply to people? -- John Reaves 00:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) According to the blocking admin, Jpgordon, the indef block was for disruptive editing and "at least 4 discussions on [this talkpage] about this right now". You should address them, because you have a lower chance of getting unblocked if you don't. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should have modified the reason when I extended to indefinite. The user probably knows what I'm talking about; checkuser rules prohibit me from saying more, but there appears to be good hand/bad hand behavior here. I recommend not unblocking until this issue is addressed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making edits to pages like Sears Canada under IPs now? It seems worrisome that this IP a. tagged your page for deletion as {{db-u1}} and b. proceeded to edit pages that you were reverting vandalism on yesterday. All the while you're trying to tell us you won't vandalize/sock again, and here it appears that you are! only (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

only, I am not vandalizing/socking, I am just improving articles like Sears Canada and updating information on articles like Empire Theatres and Landmark Cinemas. Also, I am going to try to get a clean start instead of the {{db-u1}} template. I'm not meaning the deletion of my user page per my request, I am just putting up the retired template to prepare for a clean start. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of block evasion. You, the human being, are blocked, and you must not and may not edit Wikipedia in any way other than with this account on this talk page. You are not going to get a second chance until you explain your good hand/bad hand behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I was just reverting vandalism by IP addresses, but when not logged in, I was trying not to edit by IP addresses before being blocked. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand: you can't say "I won't sock anymore" while you are currently socking by editing on the IPs! only (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not socking, I was just providing updated information about the World Exchange Plaza Cinema closing. The edits were constructive. It was from an mobile phone on the regular non-mobile site. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really are not understanding this at all or being intentionally obtuse/disruptive. You cannot edit at all. The only place you can edit right now is your talk page. You cannot use IPs to edit anywhere on this site. only (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

only, I understand, but I'm not obtuse/disruptive. I need advice please. I will not edit or improve any pages while logged out anymore under an IP address, but I will continue to read Wikipedia. I will remember to refrain from doing edits while logged out next time. I have already regretted what I've done and I apologize for the inconvenience and once again, I always completely understand about it. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be Careful Next Time

Here are the things I will be careful next time:

Do not resign AIV reports unless I report the IP addresses and usernames who repeatedly vandalize even after final warnings, recent release of block and/or evidently a vandal-only account.
Do not impersonate other users. I can say "This account/IP address was blocked by XXX" instead.
Do not issue more warnings when the editor has already stopped. Instead if the editor continues, I will start with a Level 1 warning.
I will also respond to replies and talk page posts whenever I can.

Thewikiguru1 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about your lack of communication? All these talk page posts and no replies... -- John Reaves 03:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider a possible unblock to allow you another chance, but only if you can be totally clear about your history of sockpuppetry. You have effectively admitted to evading your block by editing without logging in, but have you also used more than one account? If so, can you say exactly what other account(s) you have used? Also, you claim not to have been disruptive, but yo certainly have, in many ways. If you genuinely are not able to see that your editing has been disruptive then it is likely that you will make the same mistakes again, and will be blocked again very soon. Consequently, if I do unblock then I shall do so in the hope that you actually do know how you have been disruptive, and that you will genuinely avoid making the same mistakes again. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK JamesBWatson, I am totally clear about my history of sock puppetry. In the past, I logged in to avoid editing as an IP address. Logging in to my username also avoided sock puppetry in the past. I was not disruptive in many ways, here is the IP address I used: 174.91.130.189

I will not make the same mistakes ever again. I actually do know how I was disruptive and it will not happen again and I will genuinely avoid and refrain from doing any more same mistakes. I truly apologize for being disruptive. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, you're saying that in addition to Thewikiguru1, the only other account (either named or IP) you have ever edited from is User:174.91.130.189? You have not edited on any user name or another IP at all? only (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

only, I have not edited on any other user name or another IP address. The only IP address I ever used was 174.91.130.189. I am totally clear on this. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's why I'm confused: You state at 18:13 December 30 that "When not logged in, I have made good edits from other IP addresses that were not vandalism although there were false positives by ClueBot NG." Yet, that IP address never edits until 21:30 December 30. So you're not telling the full truth here. Plus, Jpgordon, who is a checkuser found that you are operating more than one account from the same IP address in a good hand, bad hand fashion. JamesBWatson just gave you an extremely generous gift in allowing you to come completely and totally clean, and it seems like you are passing it up by lying. only (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this editor is using more than one account; the bad hand edits as an IP, and then the account fixes the vandalism. It might also be two people sitting next to each other, but that doesn't make it any less pernicious. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am not lying, here is another IP address I used before I first got my username: 99.236.43.248

Here are one of the edits:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Carmike_Cinemas&oldid=568866207
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=ONroute&oldid=563762889
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Planet_Snoopy&oldid=547823394 (it was after I reported a false positive by ClueBot NG)
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Planet_Snoopy&oldid=547822259 (this one was possible vandalism, but I reported it as a false positive to ClueBot NG and said it was not vandalism. The following number was used to report a false positive was: 1574107)

Here is an additional IP address before I got my username: 76.69.131.49 (all were good edits, no bad hand edits, never blocked)

Also, a third IP address I used before I got my username: 76.69.130.128 (all are good edits, no bad hand edits, IP never blocked)

I was not doing bad hand edits as different IP addresses, I was just making good hand edits such as providing new information. Once again, I truly apologize for my actions and they will not happen again. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I have your permission to reveal the IP addresses I am claiming you used in an inappropriate fashion? Then we can get closer to the bottom of this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept. Remember that I do apologize and it won't ever happen again. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good.

29 December 2013 22:07: [1] IP vandalizes your talk page
22:07, from the same IP, as are all of these you revert that edit
22:08, you create User talk:64.229.196.61 with a warning
22:09, the IP vandalizes Sears Canada
22:09, you revert the vandalism
22:10 you warn the IP again
22:11, exact same sequence on Kmart: [2], [3], [4]
(Enough links) 22:13, same thing at NORAD Tracks Santa
22:15, NORAD Tracks Santa again, plus posting a note at WP:AIV
22:21-22:28 or so, edit warring with the IP at the IP's talk page
Exactly the same behavior with a different IP on Dec 28 at NORAD Tracks Santa, Firefox, Mozilla Foundation
Exactly the same behavior with yet another IP on Dec 21 at Anu.s.mohan, Internet Explorer
Ditto on Dec 25 at NORAD Tracks Santa and User talk:174.95.202.97

So now you get to explain why your IP was vandalizing with one hand and "vandal fighting" with the other hand. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPgordon, I'm so sorry for my actions, the IP's do always change from a wireless modem reset and they are different numbers. The IP was trying to blank or redirect my user page. An IP was complaining about Norad Tracks Santa and I apologize. I was not meant to change the note at WP:AIV. I am not meant to vandalize. I was reverting vandalism done by an IP address on my user page. As you may already know, I do sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and it won't happen ever again. I will be careful next time. I have already regretted about what I've done and it will never happen again. I will stop the good hand/bad hand behavior immediately. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP was not you, why are you apologizing? If the IP was not you, why are you on the same IP? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address was not me, sometimes though, the wireless modem stops responding which means it stops connecting to the internet in a "Loading" and "Cannot open page" loop and then has to be reset in order for it to re-connect to the web which means an IP address gets re-assigned. I am just apologizing for my actions I have done and I had promised that I would stop immediately and be more careful. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So who was editing on the IP address? It wasn't just one -- the same pattern occurs on multiple IP addresses, on several different days, and in each case, the IP makes an edit, and this account reverts it a moment later ON THE SAME IP though with a different browser, and then warns the IP, sometimes pretending to be an admin. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm responsible for what I've done from the IP's, I have already made a sincere apology earlier regarding about my actions. I already understand about what I've done and will not do it again. I also said that I will make good, useful and constructive contributions instead. I need more advice please. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you are being evasive and disingenuous. You sometimes directly deny that you were the person who made the disruptive edits anonymously, at other times you equivocate and implicitly admit it, but without saying so directly. You have wriggled and twisted, and repeatedly shifted your ground every time it has become clear to you that we are not being taken in by your latest lies. When I said that I was willing to consider an unblock, I went on to say "only if you can be totally clear about your history of sockpuppetry". It is clear that you have not been totally clear about it, and do not intend to do so: on the contrary, you have done your best to muddy the waters and make the whole thing as unclear as you can. I agree 100% with the comments above from Ponyo, including "These aren't the actions of an editor who is truly sorry for the disruption they have caused, it's the actions of an editor who's sorry they got caught." Needless to say, I am no longer considering a possible unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]