User talk:Clippers18

Welcome!

Hello, Clippers18, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to America's Next Top Model (cycle 14). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Linguist 111^talk 14:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

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

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Challenge: Cutthroat was changed by Clippers18 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853799 on 2016-07-06T16:54:17+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Clippers18 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are evading your block by continuing to edit logged out, I have increased the block length to one week. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

First of all I will have you know that I have not been logging out of my account at all today, so you increased my block for no reason. I literally just woke up and had all of these messages for me being blocked for literally no reason. So you're the one looking dumb and weak blocking me for no reason. Get a life and get off my talk page now. Quit making assumptions you don't even know.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Template:Bad Girls Club.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what I am doing is putting the new season of the bad girls club THAT'S ALL OVER THE INTERNET AND IS EVERYWHERE!!! So stop deleting it.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bad Girls Club, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok seriously though??, if you go on oxygen's page, everything for the new season of the bad girls club is on their, the trailer is released today, they have the girls and where their from, and the day it airs, so I'm helping this page, you are the ones ruining it, and I will not stop either because you guys can't put it on their yourselfs, so I am.

Not good enough. You need to provide inline citations for the content that you persist in adding to the article. Without inline citations supporting the claims, the content must be removed. =--AussieLegend (✉)

Then how about you do it. I'm trying to help the page, but you keep deleting it. It doesn't make sense to have a page, without updating it about the new seasons. You have no sources or nothing about it, and I am trying to put stuff on there, and you keep deleting it.

I don't know where these alleged sources are. It's up to you to provide sources for the content that you add. The more I see of what you post, the more you look like this editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find all of the sources on Oxygen's page like I just said. Again, it's not up to me to provide the sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not indefinitely--I blocked your account for two weeks. Should disruptive editing continue, you'll probably be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2016 (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).

Clippers18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't been disrupting or vandalizing any pages, I got blocked for no reason. So it's very unfair to block me, for doing nothing. Unblock me.

Decline reason:

It seams that it is established with certainty that this account was created to evade the block. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2016 (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.

You are very clearly the same editor as ******, who is currently blocked for 6 months, and you've evaded that block as ****. When you are blocked you are not allowed to edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm clearly not the same editor, so you're making assumptions that aren't true. You're blocking me for no reason.

Since this is a checkuser block, I need Drmies to clarify the situation. What is the exact reason for block? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no real reason to block me, they thought I was someone else, which I am not, and blocked me for doing nothing.

No, you were blocked for doing something: editing in defiance of a block (on an IP address). User:Vanjagenije, DoRD can probably confirm the socking, and perhaps Yamaguchi先生 can as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit something when I'm blocked... Exactly I can't, so you're blocking me for literally doing nothing. Childish and ridiculous.

You are accused of logged-out editing (anonymous IP editing) while being blocked. That is, indeed, possible. But, it is not allowed. In Wikipedia, blocks are issued to persons, not accounts. You are blocked as a person, so you shouldn't be editing. And, please, start WP:signing your posts. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I swear to god on my life I wasn't logging out of my account at all what so ever. So I'm being accused of something I didn't do. So just because I get accused of something, doesn't mean I should be blocked for 2 weeks.

Oh knock it off. You were making the same kinds of edits you were making before you registered this account. That IP address was blocked, at which time you sang the same tune you're singing now ("I HAVEN'T BEEN DOING ANYTHING. SO WHY DID YOU BLOCK ME NOW. I LITERALLY HAVEN'T BEEN EDITING ANYTHING. UNBLOCK ME RIGHT NOW." -- note your unwarranted use of the word "literally" then and now; for those interested, please see User:Mandarax/litterally) and you created the account to avoid the block. Your block log goes back to February; unfortunately, Yamaguchi先生 did not check the "revent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box.
Considering this jeremiad, and the fact that I now see that you've been editing disruptively since at least November 2015 (a warning by AussieLegend making a lot of edits that are trivial, unnecessary, unexplained, I'm going to literally go ahead and block this account indefinitely. If you have anything more useful to say than I DIDN'T TO ANYTHING, go ahead and say it--if that's really the only song on your repertoire, I will also revoke your talk page access. You have taken up too much valuable time.
For the record: some of the editor's work was coloring articles like it's kindergarten; Callmemirela warned them about violating WP:COLOR in January 2016 already. Other warnings for disruptive editing (unexplained and unverified information on reality TV shows, frequently) were given by EvergreenFir, Donner60, DPH1110, Linguist111. Blocks were made by, in chronological order, Peacemaker67, KrakatoaKatie, Materialscientist, and Yamaguchi (twice). Drmies (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: You are accused of logged-out editing (anonymous IP editing) while being blocked - It's really moot now, and Drmies has pretty much covered the issues but, just to clarify since I have no doubt we'll see this editor again, he originally edited as 68.187.108.155 and was eventually blocked. He then evaded the block using *****. When I pointed out to ****** that it was obvious he was ****, he stopped editing from that IP and created this account. The actual situation is a reverse of what we usually see. He was using an IP and created an account to evade his IP block. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Clippers18. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]