User talk:Anepicuser

May 2021

Hello, I'm Jusdafax. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Jérôme Boateng, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jusdafax (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf do u mean? He will leave bayern after this season its confirmed. Ur such a dickhead. Anepicuser (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh Jusdafax? Anepicuser (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Wikipedia articles are based on the concept of verifiability WP:V and reliable sources WP:RS. Please supply citations to support your statements, especially for the biography of a living person per WP:BLP. Given your needlessly combative demeanor in the area of polemics, I also reccommend reviewing Wikipedia's Five Pillars at WP:5P, especially the fourth. Jusdafax (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax Stfu and if u have the guts come fight me in pubg, 1 vs 1. And u could have provided some reliable sources rather than reverting it and fuckin warning me. This proves your lazy. Anepicuser (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC

Jusdafax your scared of me, arent you? Anepicuser (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

First of all, I wanna apologize to Jusdafax for my behaviour towards me and I realize its unacceptable. I'm really sorry for going way too far regarding a simple issue and I do apologize for it. If I'm unblocked I'll be civil and will always behave in a good manner. I'm really really sorry for what I did and I can promise that it wont happen again. Give me a chance to prove myself.Anepicuser (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I will give you another chance to participate here. As noted by Ritchie and I gently reiterate, should the personal attacks resume, you will be reblocked. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how in the 22 minutes between your last edit and this request you realized that personal attacks are not acceptable. What edits do you wish to make, and how will you go about doing so? Do you understand that it isn't up to others to provide reliable sources for your edits? (Especially about living people) 331dot (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things:

How do you know that Boateng will leave Bayern Munich at the end of the season? We need evidence of where you got this - such as a broadsheet newspaper.
As Justafax couldn't find this information, he was concerned that putting speculation on Boateng's career could be libellous, and correctly reverted it citing the biography of living persons policy.
If somebody politely explains to why they had to remove something, don't insult them with potty words.
I don't agree with the block message - in my view, you are here because you want to improve Wikipedia; you were just doing it in a sub-optimal way.

NinjaRobotPirate On the grounds that a) the user has apoligised, b) I've spelled out the issue in simple terms and c) unblocks are cheap, I'm inclined to unblock provided 331dot's above question is answered satisfactorily, and with the strict condition that any further insults will be quickly met with a reblock. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ritchie. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can want to improve Wikipedia but engage in disruption listed in WP:NOTHERE. It is a common misunderstanding to think that it means "isn't interested in writing encyclopedia articles". I don't care that much if you unblock this editor – the unblock request is adequate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 and 331dot, after getting blocked I read WP:5P and became a bit more familiar with wikipedia's guidelines . I know I should've responded to the user in a polite manner rather than abusing him and I understand that I've to provide reliable sources to support the information I added. Anepicuser (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My question is why did you not know that you shouldn't make personal attacks before you were told not to? Not making personal attacks is part of everyday civility, not something one just does on Wikipedia. This may sound like nitpicking but many areas of editing on Wikipedia are contentious and could lead to heated disucssions, and we must be assured the problematic behavior will not repeat. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I knew that personal attacks are not allowed but I went a bit too far and abused him for which I apologized. From now on even in some heated discussions, I'll try to be as polite as possible and wont harass or abuse anyone. I'll always try to assume good faith. Anepicuser (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Miroslav Klose. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Bigbulletfeels per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigbulletfeels. 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.

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 ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is the only wikipedia account I've ever had so I'm not sure why I've been blocked for inappropriately using multiple accounts. I don't believe the evidence behind my block is legitimate and am therefore requesting a further check, maybe it is a case of a shared IP address since I used to edit from school. I was initially blocked for harassment which I completely understand and was later unblocked after I apologised. After that I've always been civil on wikipedia and this block came as a massive surprise to me since I've never had any other wikipedia accounts. Anepicuser (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning it is supported with technical evidence. I don't think the allegation is necessarily you yourself are using multiple accounts, but that you are engaging in meat puppetry- which can involve others with other accounts. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2022 (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.

331dot I don't understand what you're trying to imply, as I said before this is the only account I've ever had on this encyclopedia so there is definitely something wrong with the checkuser evidence. What do you mean by saying that this is not me? I'm the only one who has access to this account. Anepicuser (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this may be your only account- you, the person I am replying to. However, please see WP:MEAT. If others do the same activities that a blocked user or users do, it is treated as if a single person operates those accounts. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I'd like a further checkuser check on my block to prove my innocence. Anepicuser (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a checkuser, and I cannot see the basis for the block. You will need to make another unblock request. As I said, even if you are a completely different person, that doesn't explain the behavior. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I don't know the owner of the other accounts which have been claimed to be my socks, I'm not familiar with the checkuser policy or how the checks work. The least you could do is ask a checkuser to review my block because it is a serious misunderstanding. Anepicuser (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By its nature checkuser information is kept secret, to prevent bad actors from further avoiding detection. This is why even admins do not have access to it. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: how am I supposed to proceed? Anepicuser (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make another unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked a year ago for sockpuppetry which I believe is nothing more than a serious misunderstanding, this is the only account I've ever had on wikipedia and I don't know the owners of the other accounts claimed to be my socks either. I was initially blocked for harassment for which I sincerely apologised and was unblocked after a successful review. Since then up until my second block I only made constructive edits and didn't engage in any uncivil acts. I truly believe this is a mistake by the checkusers so I'm a requesting a further review on my block. Anepicuser (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to a blocked IP address, Highly likely to banned vandal, Knightrises10. Yamla (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yamla First I was blocked for being a sock of Bigbulletfeels and now you're saying I'm a sock of Knightrises10 and have been using a blocked ip address. This checkuser evidence makes no sense, how can I be a sock of so many different accounts?

Decline reason:

Please don't use the appeal template for discussion. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 22 September 2022 (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.

Ponyo what am I supposed to do then if Yamla doesn't reply? Anepicuser (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your question makes no sense. Plenty of sockpuppeteers use many accounts. You yourself have used multiple accounts. In any case, it's not particularly relevant whether or not you are Knightrises10. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]