User talk:Rothchild

Regarding edits made during January 11 2008 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Asterion^talk 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i'm new here lol--Rothchild (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off...

Your edits (RE: foil hats & conspiracy theorists) are disruptive. Additionally, edits like this & this are inappropriate. Further disruption will result in a block. — Scientizzle 07:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree that he's is a conspiracy theorist does not mean I need to censor.--Rothchild (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to be disruptive and rude, you can take 48 hours off. When the block expires, feel free to contribute positively whilst avoiding disruptive editing.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

— Scientizzle 08:06, 11 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I try to add something productive to the conspiracy theory articles and I get blocked? Sorry sir, but you're the rude one here who clearly didn't assume good faith.--Rothchild (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You continued trolling and edit warring over the same material even after you knew that there was thread on AN/I about it, I also suspect sockpuppetry as its obvious that you are incredibly familiar with micellaneous areas of the project such as WP:LAME and guidelines and policies such as WP:STALK and WP:SOCK, very unusual for a "new" user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:16, 11 January 2008 (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 extended your block to indef per this edit [1] if you are familiar with those policies its safe to assume that you also know WP:NPA, and adding a personal attack while blocked shows obvious disregard for the editing priviledge, I left this page unprotected for now so you can a proper unblock request, but if you troll or keep adding copyrighted material such as the script of the intro of a copyrighted program I will protect it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't personal attacks. I'm just practicing editing for when I become a model contributer to Wikipedia. And who cares if I add "copyrighted info" on my talk page? Who's going to even read it? Like there isn't copyrighted material all over the rest of the site?--Rothchild (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That just proves my point for extending the block, "practicing to become a model contributer" is certainly the most creative excuse that I have read for adding personal attacks, as for the copyrighted material read WP:FU. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being biased. I never vandalized in the first place, and that's the problem here. When that Skylights guy posted that tl:dr diatribe about me on the admin board he quotes me twice. But only it was quote mining that made me look like a troll. He failed to add my reasoning for adding the link:

"They clearly demonstrate the fear and paranoia that would fit the description of someone that would wear a tin foil hat. If someone were doing a research paper on tin foil hats and they needed additional research then Alex Jones about would be a good example.--Rothchild (talk)"My intention was never vandalism and when I saw that my name was linked to the admin board and he wrote all those lies about me I was shocked and appalled. I guess I kind of over reacted. It was a bad first week at school.--Rothchild (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody posted lies about you and it was nobody's intention to harass you. And yes, the edits you have made at tin foil hat were inappropriate. Conspiracy theory and paranoia are already linked in the article lead; specific examples of conspiracy theories have no place in the article, because it is an article about tin foil hats, not about conspiracy theories.
Having reviewed the material you have added into your talk page and in the face of your flat denial that you have done anything wrong, I fully agree with the indefinite block. Should you make a sincere apology, then there'll be something to talk about. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have your way. I might have unblocked you, but because your continued trolling using the sockpuppet account Timbermile99, you can consider my offer forfeit. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rothchild for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Skylights76 (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]