User talk:Brian Boru is awesome

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Venom (comics). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That I would like to edit comic book articles. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC) And that I was revert happy.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Even though I am not an administrator and don't have an account, I am an expierenced editor. I am telling you now that your request "I was revert happy", doesn't address the reason for your block and it will most likely be declined for this reason. I would recommend reading the policy page that I have linked to you here and then changing your appeal to make it more effective. Remember, you can edit your appeal template while it is pending review. Best wishes, 216.246.149.185 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Experienced? You've only been here for a day.no offense. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Brian Boru is awesome: My IP address has changed because I have moved locations, but I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time. I do mean what I've said above though. Your request will most likely be declined in its current state. Just letting you know. Also, please indent replys to posts by adding colons : to the beginning of each reply line. Each reply should have one more colon than the post before it. 216.246.149.185 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - For one thing, this unblock request doesn't address the rampant sockpuppetry and disruptive editing that continued after you were indefinitely blocked, nor does it demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, or that this behavior won't continue if you are unblocked. - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why you're commenting now. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I'm concerned that the reasons for your block (and the sockpuppetry that continued after the block) will continue. You haven't shown that you understand the reasons for your block, and when that's brought up your response is this comment. That kind of response doesn't indicate your willingness to contribute to a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So you don't trust me Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your unblock request does not indicate that your behavior will change. Please read WP:THREAD; the IP editor above explained the use of colons to indent lines, to show that you're responding to a specific comment. Is there a specific reason you're not indenting your responses? - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's easier not to Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the IP editor has indented your comments for you. It's not exactly reassuring that you're here to edit collaboratively when you can't even be bothered to format your talk page comments or address the reasons for your block in the first place. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet you seem concerned about me. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I had told this editor that his appeal wouldn't go very far when it read "I won't use sockpuppets or block evasion" because based on the block log entries, this editor was never blocked for evasion, but rather was blocked for large accounts of disruptive editing, and then was reblocked for spamming another editor's inbox. However, based on what Aoidh has said here, it seems that this editor has indeed been blocked for socking as well. Also, an appeal won't go through unless the editor can prove, not just claim that his/her block-worthy behaviors will stop. Sorry for not catching this earlier, but because this appeal is only one claim, it still will be declined in its current state. 216.246.149.185 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 13:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: As of October 10, 2015, checkuser confirms this user continues to sock; this should be taken into consideration when evaluating any future unblock requests or standard offer attempts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

InterC.E.P.T. listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect InterC.E.P.T.. Since you had some involvement with the InterC.E.P.T. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

IP socking
This editor continues to edit while logged out and evade their block by IP socking. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

TPA restored
Note I have restored your talk page to allow you to appeal. As a CheckUser confirmed you were socking 6 months ago, you’ll need to wait to December until it is considered, but I don’t mind restoring TPA in advance. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * To expand a little, anyone can look back over your talk page history and see a lengthy succession of problems going back to 2011, including (but not restricted to) edit warring - and admins can examine your UTRS requests. The problems include a lot of simply not listening (for example, just saying the same things over and over again after they have been rejected, like previous unblock requests and that sequence of near-identical UTRS requests), chronic misuse of multiple accounts, block evasion, and a failure to engage in meaningful dialog when people try to approach you. If you want any chance of being unblocked, you'll need to offer a convincing explanation of these problems together with an explanation of what you will do differently if unblocked - you will need to convince a reviewer that it is to the advantage of Wikipedia to have you back on the project. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Imperial Guard members for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Imperial Guard members is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Imperial Guard members until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC) I can't do anything...

Still here
Still here

Nomination of Alternative versions of Wonder Woman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative versions of Wonder Woman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Wonder Woman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)