User talk:Hypebuster

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hypebuster! I am Otolemur crassicaudatus and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:46, 1 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).

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

Request reason:

Discriminatory unfounded blocking... I never violated anything.

Decline reason:

Banned means banned. Period. Banned users are not allowed to change one comma. (And if you weren't really a sock, you probably wouldn't be asking these supposedly rhetorical questions, would you? — Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 4 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.

Could you explain why your general behavior so closely matches that of other users listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TyrusThomas4lyf? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does it "closely match" that of another user? Because we both happen to like basketball? Because I came to Wikipedia in order to set facts straight? I believe that by and large my posts have been improvements by adding factual information or correcting mistakes that were made. That is primarily why I want to edit on this site; to edit and add correct facts regarding basketball. Is it really a surprise that there is more than one person in the whole world who knows a wide array about basketball? Isn't there any entire group of hundreds of people on Wikipedia devoted just to the NBA, for instance? I know a lot about the greatest (most famous) basketball players, the older, 80s and 90s game, and the current game as well. So when I go to make an edit on these topics, it would be much appreciated if my edit were respected and at least reviewed before reverting it. And so what if I find one of the former edits to be correct, and I undo the reversion of it in order to restore it? Is that a crime? If a banned user added content that was IN FACT correct, why wouldn't it be allowed? It would seem minimal to be given justification as to why my edits have been reverted. The fact that a banned user (TyrusThomas4lyf) made a similar edit here or there, which was then reverted, is not reason to believe that my edits are wrong. Of course I have reviewed what I am going to add before I edit it. I make sure to the best of my knowledge that what I am adding is correct. I have not been given actual reasons as to why any of my edits are wrong.--Hypebuster (talk) 11:01, 4 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a banned user. That's the point. What are you asking? "If you weren't really a sock, you probably wouldn't be asking these supposedly rhetorical questions, would you?" What the fuck are you talking about? They aren't rhetorical questions. I don't understand why I've been banned just because I want to edit some Wikipedia basketball articles, and a former editor, who was banned, also wanted to edit them. You aren't asking me a proper question, so what am I supposed to do? There is no other way of proving things other than talking common sense to you people.

Decline reason:

Banned users may not edit, and it is probable that you are indeed a sockpuppet of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Sandstein (talk) 07:43, 5 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.

Of note to any future review, 75.33.251.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) began a reverting spree; said IP appears to be on the same ISP as others already listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TyrusThomas4lyf. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]