User talk:Billhits

Your edits[edit]

Regarding your question here: [1] — you do realize that the edits you made and the four vandalism warnings that you blanked off your Talk Page are easily found in the pages' histories, right? - eo (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. That is a stupid question. How do you think the pages got like that in the first place. No consensus vandalism. And now the vandalism is winning. Billhits (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you made your first edit, Good Faith was assumed and thus the first warning was very nice. When you continued to blank the top half of the article, both ignoring warnings from established members and failing to rationalize your actions, then you vandalized. If you want to make such a major change to an article, at least provide an edit summary or talk about the "fix" on the article's talk page beforehand. -- CB...(ö) 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: I don't know what your are doing[edit]

If you continue to revert the page and ignore warnings and what other editors are asking, then expect to be blocked. - eo (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hot 100 number-one hits of 2004 (United States), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hot 100 number-one hits of 2004 (United States) was changed by Billhits (u) (t) deleting 19083 characters on 2009-01-29T15:16:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Hot 100 number-one hits of 2004 (United States), you will be blocked from editing. BloodDoll (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. - Also just so you know I am a jerk. eo (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as List of number one hits of 2003, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

You are now intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. All of the vandalism articles you created have been deleted. - eo (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying all of the content from the article(s) that have been deleted and pasting them to your Talk Page is not going to work. Please stop this or protection will be placed on your User pages for the length of your block. - eo (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet accounts[edit]

Note that additional accounts you create will be blocked as sockpuppets indefinitely (per your comment on one of your other User Talk Pages). Continued use of this account to disrupt Wikipedia (including pasting deleted articles to your User Pages) will result in blocks here also. - eo (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. - eo (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing to create sock accounts[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for reason. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

- eo (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock because of the fact that what I am doing is good.

Decline reason:

Using multiple accounts in an edit war, to make it appear that more users agree with you than actually do, is clearly not "doing good". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:02, 17 February 2009 (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 mistaken because I am very open about using multiple accounts because I was being unjustifiably blocked by editors who disagreed with me. There was no attempt at all to "make it appear that more users agree with you than actually do." So that is just wrong flat out! Billhits (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were originally blocked for being disruptive. The changes in format in the U.S. number-ones articles (from columns to tables, with images) was not to your liking, so you have continuously copied the old format and pasted the text back to the articles, on the articles' talk pages, on your user pages and user talk pages, on my talk page, etc., etc. Disagreeing with the consensus (the new formatting has received multiple featured list status since being redone) is one thing, but disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is another. Just because you're "open" about multiple accounts does not mean you are using those additional accounts to benefit or improve Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Same as before, You know, because of the editor abuse.

Decline reason:

Same as before; you know, sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 17 February 2009 (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.