User talk:Skdbfkf

September 2022

Hello, I'm Deltaspace42. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hoploscaphites have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Anthony Wood (artist), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. PopoDameron (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dunwoodie, Yonkers, you may be blocked from editing. PopoDameron (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kearns Peninsula. PopoDameron (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 21:00, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

give me my own way then or back later with more! Remove those opinions please! Skdbfkf (talk) 5:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:14, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

1) removing those two derogatory opinions on Wepwawetemsafs page will satisfy me and make me leave you alone therefore preventing anymore harm or disruption to Wikipedia. 2) if this is done then I will cease any form of disruption and promise not to make any further disruptive edits or accounts. Skdbfkf (talk) 6:44 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I respond poorly to ultimatums-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:58, 2 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.

I disagree with those opinions because I know he moved to a new area and had to do that by basically smashing two rocks together due to lack of materials and tools. Considering the way it was made and how it turned out I actually consider it the opposite and it is an excellent example of true skill and mastery to do that with a half blunt rock.

It is very damaging and derogatory and disrespectful to our history and ancestors. Published in a book or not can it please be left in the book. Skdbfkf (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= then can I request somebody with a more objective unbiased point of view then please Skdbfkf (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Sock puppetry

Thanks, now I know you are a WP:SOCK of User talk:Ts4221 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! @Oshwah:. I found a missing sock!-- Deepfriedokra (talk)

Deepfriedokra - Awesome! I see that you put in the block summary that this user is a sock of Ts4221. What makes you believe that this is indeed the case? And where did you find the missing sock? Was it in the washer or the dryer? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Demands "removing those two derogatory opinions on Wepwawetemsaf," like what Ts4421 did, as a condition for ceasing to vandalize. Well, you don't need to imagine my response, as I stated plainly that I respond poorly to ultimatums. Was wondering what you might see with your magic glasses. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i see you did. Good show. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra - It was a magnificent show, if you ask me! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:VANDALISM WP:HARASSMENT WP:SOCKPUPPETRY.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

1) removing those two derogatory opinions on Wepwawetemsafs page will satisfy me and make me leave you alone therefore preventing anymore harm or disruption to Wikipedia. 2) if this is done then I will cease any form of disruption and promise not to make any further disruptive edits or accounts. I disagree with those opinions because I know he moved to a new area and had to do that by basically smashing two rocks together due to lack of materials and tools. Considering the way it was made and how it turned out I actually consider it the opposite and it is an excellent example of true skill and mastery to do that with a half blunt rock. It is very damaging and derogatory and disrespectful to our history and ancestors. Published in a book or not can it please be left in the book. Skdbfkf (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No chance. You are working hard to make clear how inappropriate it would be to lift your block. Yamla (talk) 00:23, 3 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).

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

Request reason:

I am not talking about being unblocked I am talking about having those opinions removed can you read my reason properly please! Your answer was completely irrelevant to what I asked Skdbfkf (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not negotiate this sort of thing with blocked editors. By repeating it and failing to moderate your tone, you have not only guaranteed you won't be unblocked, you have earned the revocation of your talk page access. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 3 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.

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.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Ts4221 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ts4221. 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.

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #62614

is now closed. User states they intend to sock indefinitely. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]