User talk:Ufuncecu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ufuncecu! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous


Invite[edit]

Century Tower
Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks and Apologies[edit]

Thank you for your addition to the UF page. I'm truly sorry for how the whole issue was handled with the rankings and I apologize that, though I did just as much wrong as anyone else, you were the only one punished for the situation. I hope that we can work together in the future since we have a common goal of making this page, among others, better for everyone. Again, thank you for your help and my apologies for the way it all worked out. Fliry Vorru (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and let me add my apologies as well. I can get a little harsh when defending something I believe to be right, which doesn't generally win friends or influence people. I'm sure that collaboration in the future will be much more civil, and I will certainly work toward that end. Next time we hit an impasse, we can always just start bashing FSU, UGa, or LSU. This will remind us that we are all Gators, and ultimately have the same goal. By the way, the guy that denied my request to be unblocked was an Auburn Tiger. Talk about salt in the wound. Thanks again.Ufuncecu (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Block evasion: continuing edit war while blocked (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu). Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr\ talk / 21:27, 5 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because someone with the IP address 66.26.89.99 edited the UF page with similar ideas as mine. I do not know who this is (although I agree with him or her). My IP address is 24.211.254.23. After researching 66.26.89.99, it appears that he/she is also in central North Carolina, and I cannot explain this, but surely this is not sufficient evidence to block my account. I even commented to 66.26.89.99 on the UF talk page that I agreed with his/her comments on the subject, and that I thought it funny that Jccort thought that he/she was me. I read the case on this block request and Sam Korn says that it is "Confirmed that 66.26.89.99 is Ufuncecu editing logged-out." It is impossible to confirm something that is not factual, so I would at least like to know how he defines "confirmed." Please unblock my account, as 66.26.89.99 is not me, and never has been. Hopefully, people can share the similar views as well as approximate physical locations without being penalized by Wikipedia administrators. Also, I feel that this block initiated by Slakr is retaliatory for my expressing discontent that he singled me out in the editing war, that others should have also been blocked, and that he should be more careful. Again, I would request that this block be removed, because the basis for it is simply factually incorrect. Thanks.Ufuncecu (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, in this case you would've had to be on the same IP address when doing the action in question. Good block. — MBisanz talk 01:54, 6 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is simply not possible. Again, my IP address is 24.211.254.23 and not 66.26.89.99. MBisanz says that I "would have had to be on the same IP address when doing the action in question," and that is not even the evidence for my being blocked. My account has never been accessed through 66.26.89.99, and again, I do not know who or exactly where this IP address is even located. Will someone please take a few minutes to look into this issue in a little more depth? Thanks.Ufuncecu (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've looked at the contributions again, and even without the checkuser evidence it's clear that you've been engaging in sock puppetry. With the checkuser evidence, which is unequivocal, it's beyond doubt. Request declined. GbT/c 07:48, 6 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Will someone please provide me with this "unequivocal" evidence? I feel like I am in the twilight zone. My first block for violating the 3RR rule was warranted, but this one is not, and I hope that someone can provide me with this "checkuser evidence."Ufuncecu (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser case, noted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu, is linked in the block message above, and clearly indicates sockpuppetry between this account and the indicated IP address. I further advise that responding to the checkuser report with what amounts to "Nuh-uh" is not itself an effective technique for requesting an unblock. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:39, 6 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Look, I have been to the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu, and all it says is "Confirmed that 66.26.89.99 is Ufuncecu editing logged-out." I would like to see the evidence that supports "confirmed." As for the advice of responding to the report with a "nuh-uh" claim, that is all I am currently able to say, because I do not have access to the evidence against me. While not relevant in any way here, I am a lawyer, and I know something about evidence and proof. You cannot prove a negative, especially when no one will provide the evidence against me. I have presented my case against the circumstantial evidence, but someone is saying there is factual evidence to support my block, and I don't see how this is possible (because I have not engaged in sock puppetry), which is why I would at least like someone to show me what hard proof they are talking about. You have basically told me that you have verifiable proof, and that I should take your word for it. It is clear to me that this block will not be removed. However, I did not engage in sock puppetry, and I will continue to proclaim my innocence, and I would at least like someone to let me see this evidence that "confirms" my guilt. Please.Ufuncecu (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Read Wikipedia:CheckUser. Certain editors have access to a tool that allows them to see the IP address being used to access individual accounts. In your case, the checkuser tool indicated that the IP address of your account was 66.26.89.99, which happens to be an IP that never edited on Wikipedia before suddenly supporting your arguments on Talk:University of Florida‎ and making the same edits to the article. There is no question here. If you continue to use the unblock template, your talk page will be protected from editing. — Okiefromokla questions? 16:18, 6 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Can you tell me which edits were made in which my account was accessed through the IP address 66.26.89.99? This is obviously the thing that has everyone telling me that they are certain of my guilt, and I don't know how many more ways I can ask for the specific incident. My home IP address is 24.211.254.23, and my work IP address is 66.192.81.164, which are the only two IP addresses that I ever access my Wikipedia account from. So can someone please tell me when my account was accessed through 66.26.89.99? Surely if "there is no question here," someone can give me a specific edit or log in date or something. I am screaming my innocence and everyone is telling me that there is no question of my guilt, but no one has yet to say "look, on X date your account made Y edit using IP address 66.26.89.99." The only answer I have been given so far is "trust me, your guilty, no question." Just give me the specifics, that is all I ask. As a lawyer, I defend people accused of crimes, and the prosecution at least gives me access to the specifc evidence. I am fully aware that this is not a court, but surely there is some level of equity even here. If you must block my ability to edit this page, then do what you must do. When I was blocked previously, it was legit, and I conceded after one appeal. But there is something wrong here, and I would just like to find out what it is.Ufuncecu (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser link above is the evidence that you are saying we lack. Protecting page for abuse of unblock template. Tan ǀ 39 20:42, 6 August 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 struck my previous comment, and offer my apologies. I was evaluating the publicly available WHOIS data, which indicated that your work IP address (as you identify it above, 66.192.81.164) was registered to a firm in Littleton, Colorado, as noted in this report. Given your statements, it seemed inconsistent, which was why I pointed it out.

With regard to Checkuser evidence; unfortunately, checkuser confirmation of sockpuppetry is usually sufficient for a block, and the use of the unblock template is not a means to question the validity of that checkuser confirmation; you must surely be aware of how many dozens of vandals do so everyday, to no avail. In this case, you followed the correct procedure - you e-mailed the checkuser directly, presenting your information in a private medium, and he properly reduced the block. The information available to typical users (and admins) is insufficient to judge the validity of your claims - as evidenced by I attempt to do so. That's why we have checkusers in the first place. So I apologize for my comments, as they did nothing but enflame the situation. My best to you, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the number in parentheses represent?[edit]

{{helpme}} On my "watchlist" page, there appears a positive or negative number in parentheses after the name of the article. It follows the format "Name of Article...(+5)...Name of Editor." What does the number in parentheses indicate? I have looked for an explanation, but cannot find one. Thanks! Ufuncecu (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount in bytes that was added or subtracted from a page. Killiondude (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ufuncecu&oldid=1088227102"