User talk:68.185.181.8

Tobias Truvillion/Vincent Jones

Hello. Tobias Truvillion's last show aired on August 6. It is stated in the current ABC Soaps in Depth (September 8 issue). Not only that, there was a posted online reference. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second warning to quit removing sources from Vincent Jones. One more, and you will be reported for vandalism. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Vincent Jones (One Life to Live). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove sourced information from articles because you "don't like it." Information may be changed or removed later when a contradictory source is found. — TAnthony^Talk 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — TAnthony^Talk 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

68.185.181.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Onelifefreak2007". The reason given for Onelifefreak2007's block is: "edit warring and incivility".

Blocking administrator: Kafziel (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: This is how the autoblock is supposed to work; you are blocked from editing, even when logged out. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok can somebody tell me how to log back in, I can't log back in for some reason, because I have the password right but it won't log me back in for some reason, is this because of the block????68.185.181.8 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.J., assuming this is you, you are blocked from editing for one month, as User:Onelifefreak2007, this anonymous IP or any other IP. That means you can't log back in until January 15, 2009. Period. Attempting to in some way get around this block while it is still in effect will only make it longer.— TAnthony^Talk 01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is me, so I can't log back on until January 15 2009?, Wow, so TAnthony I have a question, why did you switch the pic of Sarah Roberts not long after I got blocked? I know why, because your like "oh P.J. is blocked for a month so maybe I can have my pic up there while he is blocked so he won't change it." Is that why? I thought we agreed to leave the way it was. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love for you to find where I agreed to "leave it the way it was." I merely stopped arguing about it, because as always you revert anything you don't like over and over and refuse to listen to the opinions of any other editors. I choose to follow policy and try to discuss issues rather than edit war, and any kind of reasonable discussion is impossible with you. So while you will revert and curse until you are blocked, I know when to let something go. I have no doubt that you will start your image business again on January 15, and I have no doubt that you will get yourself blocked again when you begin edit-warring and making uncivil comments to those who challenge your edits.

Other editors and I have reminded you time and time again that you are not the only editor at Wikipedia, and your opinion is not the only one that matters. You have a well-documented "obsession" with images, and I know that the Sarah Roberts and Téa Delgado images will drive you crazy for the next 28 days. This should tell you something; you are too personally invested in things of minimal importance, and it is pushing you to behavior that has gotten you blocked over and over, for longer and longer periods of time. If you really want to continue participating here, you are at the point where you need to decide to pick and choose your battles and sometimes let things go you may not like; otherwise you will end up banned permanently. No one wants to see that. In additon, when you come back you should seriously consider Kafziel's advice to edit in areas other than the soap-related articles which have gotten you in trouble.

Have a great holiday! — TAnthony^Talk 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I am gonna change that pic once I'm unblocked right, you do know that right? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vow to continue to edit war over something as ridiculous as a photo of a fictional character is expected and noted. It saddens me, though, that you still fail to see the big picture and learn something from this. Is it that big of a deal which photo remains in the article? Have you considered that though you may not agree with something, if the result is not disruptive or harmful to an article perhaps you could put aside your personal compulsions? This is a perfect example of your way of thinking regarding every single article you edit, and the debate can be about a photo or a date or even punctuation; you have the "correct" idea in mind and will not let go of that idea no matter how many other editors reason with you in good faith. In life and on Wikipedia, we choose our battles, and sometimes we get our way and sometimes we don't. This is a collaborative project; at times we as individuals make contributions that remain unchallenged and unchanged, but more often than not a group of editors will tweak and change content over time. This means we have to compromise, we have to agree to changes that consensus dictates, though we may not personally agree with them 100%. If you want to have full control over something, you need to create your own blog or website, because this is not the place for that.

To use images as an example, I have questioned many of your image choices for One Life to Live articles, sometimes because I didn't like the image itself or its quality, and sometimes because of your quirky need to update them unnecessarily because you like using opening credits images and/or the most recent images. Every single time I (or any editor for that matter) have challenged one of your image uploads, you have insisted and reverted and attacked, often to the point of being blocked. Myself, Flyer22, AniMate and others have consistently chosen to "let it go" in each of these instances, because unlike you we realize that it is of minimal importance, and not worth extended arguments — every one of your "new" uploads has remained. However it offends me and shows a complete disrespect for other editors and the collaborate process itself that you have never once conceded in any of these discussions. And, not satisified with "getting your way" thanks to the civility and goodwill of other editors, your belligerent, disrespectful and uncivil comments and behavior have not only continued over the last few months, but I dare say have worsened.

I think you should consider the Sarah Roberts image as bait; by returning to editing after a month-long block and reverting that image, you are showing to everyone at Wikipedia that you have not learned a single thing from your history of controversy and blocks. You are showing to everyone that you are personally invested in articles, assuming ownership of articles, and that you do not have the willpower to let alone a single item you're not crazy about. Will you take that bait? I think you will, because you are unable to participate in thoughtful discussion and concede a point. And when you take that bait, I assure you it will lead to a longer block, because you have not learned how to handle challenges and disputes without resorting to edit wars and personal attacks. But if you want to stay as a useful contributor to Wikipedia, I encourage you to prove me wrong.— TAnthony^Talk 05:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could've just left it alone when I was blocked but no, you had to reupload the image and replace my image with your image right after I was blocked, if it wasn't for me, Michael McBain, Charlie Banks, Starr Manning, Marcie McBain, Marty Saybrooke, Brody Lovett, Gigi and Shane Morasco and Rex Balsom would not have the updating opening shots as they do now, if it wasn't for me, when the role of Michael McBain was recasted, the new Michael wouldn't have been up there the he debuted as Michael, it would look really friggin weird to have a pic of Nathaniel Marston as Michael when Chris Stack took over the role that day. As for my comments, I apologize for them, shouldn't have said what I said. But I'm not sorry for uploading pics that I think are appropiate just like my Sarah Roberts pic. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever said you have not made valuable and appreciated contributions. The problems you have had are not even about the actual images you upload or edits you make, they are about the way you behave during discussions and disputes and the way you treat other editors. Behavior and the way we interact and collaborate with others is actually more important than actual content in the context of Wikipedia functioning at its best.

It has indeed been helpful and useful that you have added photos for characters which did not have them (Shane Morasco) and provided images of performers that didn't previously exist (Chris Stack). However, the fact that you uploaded "new" versions of actor images with their latest haircuts or made all articles "match" using only photos from the opening titles is perhaps "nice," but is not important and is definitely not worth arguing about. The images exist to give the reader an idea what a character looks like, to be able to tell Evangeline Williamson from Talia Sahid. The difference between old and new Rex Balsom and Starr Manning photos is negligible. Yeah, it's fine to update the images to be current, but if someone has a reasonable reason why the older image might stay, what's the harm? Your answer to this has been, "too bad, that's the way I like it and that is final." That's unacceptable.— TAnthony^Talk 07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that fact that you are so put out by my changing the Sarah image after your block should tell you that you have a problem. Think about why this matters so much to you, and you will hopefully see that it is merely a personal compulsion. It is such a minor thing that would not bother someone who was not personally invested in articles and feeling ownership. Reflect on that, and challenge yourself to resist these silly obsessions, for the sake of your continued involvement here.— TAnthony^Talk 07:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, when I'm unblocked, if it's alright with you, can I have my Sarah Roberts pic up there, I just think that the one you have is kinda bright. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that before, so I made it a little less bright in PhotoShop. But I am serious about this as a personal challenge for yourself; I personally dislike "your" pics of Talia, Viki, Marcie, John McBain and others, and yet when you persisted I dropped the issue because it is not important. You have to learn to do the same thing. Period. The fact the you have just been blocked for a month and your biggest concern is an image is a bad sign. For you to let an otherwise acceptable image that you happen to dislike stay in an article indefinitely would be the first step in proving that you are really trying to be a collaborative and respectful editor.— TAnthony^Talk 07:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really don't know why you changed the Sarah Roberts pic, but I think mine will look better and the quality of it is alot better, but I don't know why you were so persistant with having yours up there, and yeah I will change it when I get unblocked, unless you wanna be a good sport about it and change it back, or if you want we can have both images up there.68.185.181.8 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ, for all intents and purposes, both Sarah images are equal in appropriateness and quality, we each just prefer one or the other. You ask why I'm persistent with my choice? Why are you so persistent with yours? Why must every other editor be a "good sport" to give you "your way" when you are unwilling to ever give the same courtesy? Having two images in an article serving the same purpose is not a solution, it is again your attempt to circumvent consensus. You are clearly not understanding the point I have tried to make over and over about your behavior and commitment to the collaborative backbone of Wikipedia. I can't fathom why this image is such an issue with you that you would continue edit-warring over it; you are not even pretending that you care about trying to really collaborate annd respect other editors. I'm going to be honest ... I can be perfectly happy with either photo because it is a ridiculously silly issue. But this is no longer about that; the fact that you cannot concede to a single issue with which you disagree proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not the kind of person who can adequately participate within the specifications of Wikipedia. Changing that image will be continuing to edit war, and if the first thing you do when your block is lifted is violate policy, you are asking to be banned forever. I really really cannot understand why this isn't sinking in with you.— TAnthony^Talk 17:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of sounds, anon, as if you're saying that you are not willing to accept any consensus that doesn't include your preferred images. That isn't really how Wikipedia works- we all have to compromise sometimes, and none of us get exactly what we'd want all the time. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you just said? Which image to use on any given article isn't such a big deal, but an unwillingness to cooperate and compromise could be a significant enough problem that it would prevent you from editing Wikipedia successfully. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because maybe I have Aspergers Syndrome, from the way I see it TAnthony, by having your pic up there, it's saying to me that yours is better, I'd be willing to compromise or to work this out, it's saying that I'm not a good editor cuz I make my shots from Windows Movie Maker. That's how I see things, that's what I'm thinking and it pisses me off man. I just automatically think that go along with that. That's how I think. You know I like to update the pics. I just thought that since all the other pics have better quality, I could post the original I had up there with a better quality, that way you won't delete it. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our work here changed and criticized; it is the very nature of a collaborative project. We cannot and should not such criticism personally. None of us is perfect, and I am not insulted if you do not like an image I have uploaded or text I have written, it is your opinion. But after such criticism, editors should enter into a thoughtful discussion about how to make something the best it can be through input and compromise. I'm sorry if you feel insulted and mad when editors challenge your work, but this is your own issue. That should not preclude you from being cooperative. The fact that you recognize these impulses in yourself is great, but you need to not act on them.

While Asperger's certainly explains a lot about where you're coming from and your behavior, it is somewhat irrelevant. Wikipedia is a place with certain rules and regulations, and by participating you agree to conform to those rules. If you are unable to do that, you should not be here. If we don't follow rules at school, we are expelled, if we don't follow government laws, we are arrested. This is the same basic concept on a smaller scale.— TAnthony^Talk 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea, why don't we post both of the pics up on the article and let the editors vote for which pic they like the best, and whichever has the most votes, can be that display pic for the Sarah Roberts pic.68.185.181.8 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, and has been used to settle similar disagreements. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course happy to entertain that solution, and though I take it on good faith that you are serious about the idea and will actually submit to consensus at that point should it not go your way, I am somewhat less than confident. A formal vote is no different than multiple editors disagreeing with one of your edits, which is exactly what occurred last week with the Kamar de los Reyes information in List of One Life to Live cast members in which you were edit-warring. Several images you have uploaded have been similarly challenged by multiple editors, but you did not submit to consensus. I can dismiss all that and take this seriously, but I am holding you to your word that you will abide by such voting results for the Sarah Roberts articlke and any similar situation in the future. Yes, I expect you to bow to consensus in any and all disputes in the future, over images or anything else, as we are all expected to do.— TAnthony^Talk 21:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright than, if my your pic wins than I'm all for that pic. If my pic wins, which I hope it does, than that will be the display pic. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ, I'm sorry you've been blocked for a month, though maybe you can think of it as a winter holiday. However, I'm not really surprised. I hope when you come back from your vacation that you have read WP:Consensus. That flies in the face of your "my way or the highway" attitude, and if you persist in that, then I'm afraid you'll be sent out on the highway permanently. I understand some of the challenges people with AS face, and I'm sorry conforming to community standards has been hard for you. I'm not going to be around for about 24 hours, but if you're interested I'd be happy to get a list of internet venues that might let you host your own page about OLTL and post whatever images you'd like. Soapcentral.com and Soapoperafan.com both started out as websites run by one person, and are now among the most definitive soap opera websites around. A ni Mate 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Animate, don't be sorry, I deserve it man, it's all good, have to take what life throws atcha you know, so what I'm blocked for a month big deal, I'll be back, I always come back, and I think that would be good but I don't know how to make my own website. The only website I have is this www.youtube.com/Fullhousefreak2007 that's the only one I have. Why don't you check that out. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked, please do not edit

I don't know how this edit was possible, but please do not edit AT ALL during your block.— TAnthony^Talk 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit without being logged in, that block was set to expire sometime today, but alright I won't edit. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ, obviously I have no problem with this edit you just made, but you are not supposed to be editing during your block! This tells administrators that you do not respect the rules, whether your edits are OK or not. That edit was obviously minor, so it is not worth getting your block extended ... do yourself a favor, take my advice and don't check in on this site for the duration of your block. Doing so will only tempt you to make minor edits like this.— TAnthony^Talk 16:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ you are blocked from editing until January 15, whether you are logged in or not. Please stop editing or your block will be reset. A ni Mate 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can somebody put Asa's Ghost on the comings and goings page since I can't edit, and plus it's a ghost since the actual character is dead. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OLTL Comings and Goings

Hey can somebody fix the comings and goings page, last week before I was blocked I put the comings and goings page by date from earliest to latest, first with Tari Signor and ending with Crystal Hunt, could somebody fix that since I'm blocked and I'm not allowed to edit? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I fixed the list for you; thanks for making this request and respecting the block. Don't worry about this kind of stuff though, it's OK if articles are a little off or less-than-perfect for a few days, especially concerning current happenings. And I would actually suggest that you take a break, enjoy the holidays and not even check your watchlist very often. I know it would make me a little frustrated if I was unable to edit but watching pages constantly. Give yourself a break man ;) — TAnthony^Talk 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TAnthony, I just got word from soaps.com this morning and they said that Miles Laurence is gone from the show, but Vincent Jones is on recurring status still, should he still be on the recurring list? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TAnthony can you fix the comings and goings page umm A Martinez is gonna return on December 23 and not December 30. Here is proof http://www.soaps.com/onelifetolive/comings_and_goings/ can you please fix it?? So I don't get yelled at again by you or animate? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The A Martinez entry will be removed when he appears on 12/23 and the Asa entry will be removed on 12/27 after he appears, so why bother making these changes? Wikipedia is the last place that fans looking for day-by-day casting info are going to look, these kinds of ever-changing miniscule facts don't need to be constantly updated.— TAnthony^Talk 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is THIS?? PJ, please control yourself and STOP EDITING.— TAnthony^Talk

I wouldn't have to do any editing if this koolguy dude messed the whole list up, geez, don't blame me, blame him, it's his fault, if he left it alone, than I wouldn't have to do any editing. Removing Asa and linking the dates and also removing Puddle of Mudd and the plain whit t's when they haven't been on the show yet is wrong, this koolguy needs to understand that. They are giving people false information. Sorry but I just had to do it. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have to edit. You are not supposed to be editing, which includes reverting vandalism or anything else. Just stop monitoring the site until your block is over, for crying out loud.— TAnthony^Talk 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAnthony

Just one more week left and guess whose back, hahahaha, that's right, I can't wait, oh by the way I shot some more pics from the opening, the same ones only I think these have better quality, I'll change them when I get unblocked. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, your block was restarted on 12/27/08 because you continued to edit using this IP, so we'll see you back on January 27.— TAnthony^Talk 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG are you kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.181.8 (talk • contribs) 10:51, January 9, 2009

Nope. Check the diff I provided above, or your ever-lengthening block log. — TAnthony^Talk 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion your right I shouldn't have edited, and I deserve it to be restarted, so I'm not gonna edit til this one is over with, and to make sure I do that I wanna have a request to have this IP address blocked until my block is over with. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok so two more days before I get unblocked, have you missed me yet, LOL 68.185.181.8 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... three days left and the world waits with baited breath... are you going to behave yourself and follow the rules? Or are you going to get yourself blocked permanently? Inquiring minds want to know... Love and kisses, your old pal BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not you again, leave me alone oh and I get unblocked tomorrow so yeah.68.185.181.8 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like a bad cold, I keep coming back. Been following your antics since our little set-to - and what are you answering "yeah" to - behaving yourself, or the permanent block? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassPlyr23 (talk • contribs) 10:59, January 26, 2009

Isn't it funny how I am gonna be unblocked in what 3 hours from now, huh bassplyr23 68.185.181.8 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PJ, I'm happy for you that your extended block will be over shortly, but I am hoping that you have learned something about how to consider the opinions of other editors, compromise when the need arises and behave here in general. I know you are anxious to get back to editing, but I urge to to put your energy into actually editing and improving articles, rather than reigniting old conflicts by focusing on the kinds of contributions that have led to your problems before. I suggest that you open discussions on talk pages before you change photos or perform other kinds of significant changes which have attracted attention from other editors in the past. It is always best to take the time to discuss these things beforehand to avoid conflict; there is no harm in an article remaining in a form you don't agree with for a few days while an issue is discussed. Thanks in advance.— TAnthony^Talk 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I know, I have to do some fixing up on a guiding light character, redo the number for the OLTL episode count and change that John McBain pic back. Thanx for getting Vanessa and Lola Montez's pics up there, I was gonna do it when I got unblocked but you did it, also thanx for the new Tea pic, it looks good. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you have to change the John McBain pic? There you go again! In the "newer" pic you've pushed in the past, he has short hair, so the character currently more closely resembles the pic that's in the article now. I certainly hope you're going to open it up to discussion rather than steamroll your own opinions. That would make for a lackluster first day back. — TAnthony^Talk 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm gonna have both pics up there and let other people decide, which one has the most votes will be the main one, just like I'm gonna do with the Sarah Roberts pic. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can somebody tell me why I can't logon, I'm already unblocked? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a time zone thing, and you're not quite unblocked yet? And by the way, NEVER remove legitimate sources from an article for no reason.— TAnthony^Talk 05:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question but what is legitimate mean? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive: from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Pay particular attention to definition # 4:

LEGITIMATE (adjective)

Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law

Date: 15th century

1 a: lawfully begotten ; specifically : born in wedlock b: having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>

2: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>

3 a: accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b: ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>

4: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>

5: relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>

BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanx for the info but I don't read dictionaries because I can't understand them, but thanx for the help bassplyer23, and another thing, why can't I still logon, I mean it's already January 28th and I can't still logon, should I make a new screen name or what because I have no idea.

68.185.181.8 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I emphasized definition 4 is because it applies specifically to your Wikipedia situation, to wit "following the same rules that everyone else follows." The fact that you've threatened (right here on this user page, in fact) to keep on doing exactly what you did before is the probable reason you still can't get on. It's possible that your block was extended because of your threatened actions. Trying to create a new screen name is called sockpuppetry, which is what you did to earn your recent (December 27 extension) block, and would likely earn you a permanent block if you tried it again. Maybe you should ask the administrator who blocked you why you can't log on. BassPlyr23 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could but Kafziel's talk page is secure meaning I can't ask him why I can't logon without being logged on. Why don't you ask him yourself? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can log on with your IP address, let him know that you're Onelifefreak2007 and ask him why you're still blocked. It's not my job to get you unblocked. You have to do that yourself... unless you've been permanently blocked, which is also a possibility. BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Life to Live

Please note my comment on the episode numbers here.— TAnthony^Talk 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that, but heck if you count from August 17 up until now and skip all the dates that I mentioned you will see that I'm right, and plus I'm unblocked TAnthony and I can't logon what's up with that? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure about the block thing, Kafziel assures us you're unblocked ... are you sure you've got the right password, or that your caps lock is off? What error message are you getting? Try emptying your cache, etc.

As far as OLTL goes .. like I said, you may very well be right, but the ABC site disagrees with you so ... perhaps you're missing some pre-emptions, perhaps the site is wrong, but we should go with the source until it is preoven inaccurate, as we would for any other article on Wikipedia. Again, I'm sure your counting is fine, but it's origibal research.— TAnthony^Talk 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the error says, Login error Incorrect password or confirmation code entered. Please try again.

Bye Bye...

P.J.: It isn't as if a LOT of people (including myself) didn't try to warn you about edit warring and its consequences. You seem to have some psychological infirmity that compels you to do things your own way, damn the torpedoes. Too bad... you might have made a good editor. Guess we'll never know now. Sorry your stubbornness led to this. BassPlyr23 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'll get unblocked, just have to talk to TAnthony I'm sure he'll get me unblocked, I was just following the rules, if a person is leaving the soap they are not on contract, they are in the comings and goings page, I'll admit I should've discussed it, and I was going too but Kafziel already beat me to it by blocked me before I could. Plus I'm doing One Life to Live on Wikia now so, the dude that had started that didn't even update it, so I'm doing that. 68.185.181.8 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm sorry about the block, but there's nothing I can do about it. And there are no "rules" here about how these lists are maintained, you were edit-warring, if you realize it or not. I'm really glad you're pouring your efforts into Wikia though.— TAnthony^Talk 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I need help with Wikia, care to help me out on it, get the OLTL Wikia updated? 68.185.181.8 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2009 (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.