User talk:Don't Talk With Me

[Note from Jimbo: this user was previously blocked under account User:Brexx for sockpuppeting, copyright violations, and so on but he's promised to behave, so let's give him a chance! Very short leash though.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of the ip of the university i attend, Full Sail University

 * On further investigation, I see that that shared IP address is blocked mainly because you were using it to create sock puppet accounts before you were unblocked. I think that this block can remain in place until you earn the trust of the community. Ask again in a couple of months. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-blocked
Given what Kww says [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADon%27t_Talk_With_Me&action=historysubmit&diff=463210875&oldid=463149729 here], it turns out there was no factual basis for the second-chance ban lifting that was offered to you by Jimbo Wales. You have evidently not learned to understand what the problems with your previous editing were, and thus your second chance is evidently not based on a genuine, realistic plan to edit differently in the future. Also, your edit on Kww's page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=prev&oldid=463208986] shows an alarming lack of social competence in addition to the lack of academic competence. If you previously called for Kww to be killed, as he says (and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what he's saying), then you can't simply go to his page now and tell him "anyway, you want to be friends and help each other or not?" One of the obvious preconditions that should have been required of you before any unban could even be considered, according to basic human decency, would have been a genuine, public apology to Kww and others you have harmed in the past. The fact that this was apparently not done only goes to show that the unban offer was given without due fact-checking and without due consultation with the community; it was therefore never valid in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)