User talk:Greengobbie92

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dressed to Kill (1980 film). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Please stop creating inappropriate links. As I've stated several times, not all thrillers are films. Also, stop adding more and more examples, especially ones that are based on nothing more than your personal opinion. There are waaaaay too many examples already and unless a reliable source has labeled them as part of sub-genre, they fall into the realm of original research. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources that explicitly state the examples you've added are indeed considered part of the sub-genre or they will be deleted. Each type should only have a few examples. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Last House on the Left
Please visit Talk:The Last House on the Left (2009 film) to discuss the identified genre for the film. I'm tried of looking at edit wars back and forth and we really shouldn't have a source in the middle of the sentence (improper format) just to say "this is horror" or "this is thriller". I want to get a discussion going so that we can have a clear consensus, since this film borders both a thriller and horror field.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Psycho3.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Psycho3.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Smithfieldprec.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Smithfieldprec.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Smithfieldrain.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Smithfieldrain.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Australia and tasmania climate map.png
A tag has been placed on File:Australia and tasmania climate map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Your addition to New South Wales has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Also do not add unsourced content as it is seen as original research. Bidgee (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Climate of Australia, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Midlands (Tasmania), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Deserts
{| style="border-spacing:2px; margin:0px" width="100%"

September 2010
'''You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired.'''

This block may be lifted after 48 hours if you agree to discuss any further intended changes either here or on the article's talk page, only make changes which are verifiable, stay within Wikipedia's copyright rules for use of external sources, and stick to reliable sources only. Note that while blocked you are still able to reply at your own talk page. Orderinchaos 00:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may not put your own requests on hold - they'll never get actioned that way. The request is in the queue. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/King kong92 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for sock puppetry or meat puppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety talk 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Being deliberately obtuse will likely result in your talk page privileges being revoked. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to keep editing, you need to not just say you won't sock anymore but show us. Pick one account that you will use no matter what, and disclose any and all other accounts under your control, regardless of whether you have been linked to them or not. You can't keep insisting that you have the right to create a new account if your first one gets blocked: that's against WP:SOCK and a misreading of WP:VANISH. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No you don't have the right to create another account if your previous one gets blocked. If your account is blocked to stop you from editing then you may not edit. You have a history of unhelpful editing under several accounts. The degree of evidence that all the accounts are the same person is too much to be chance coincidence. I suggest you take a look at the standard offer, and that if you choose to take it up, then when you come back in six months you disclose all of the accounts you have used. I think that this unblock request should be declined, but, having already declined one request, I will leave it for another administrator for now. However, bear in mind that four different administrators have declined unblock requests on your present unblock, and it will be five if another one declines your latest request. I suggest you don't make another request unless you can add a substantially new reason, otherwise there is a likelihood that you will have talk page access removed, as continual requests with no new reasons are likely to be seen as a waste of everybody's time. (In fact if I were declining this request I would consider removing your talk page access now.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello
For God's sake. Give this guy a break. He is a good-faith editor. He is valueable to WIKIPEDIA like other editors. I invited him to WP Deserts because he did a 'very good' work on Gobi Desert. He must have misread the Graham1973 to Graham23 but that was no sensible excuse to turn down an unblock request. Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The misreading of '1973' as '23' is not the reason for my decline: it is the Graham is not my sockpuppet account - when the SPI CU evidence clearly says otherwise. As such, the reason for the block was not addressed. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you guys are using reliable tools in the inverstigation...I can't deny that something is wrong with this user's account...but I hate losing a good editor from wikipedia. Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 11:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Computers make mistakes, Phantomsteve. Maybe Graham1973 lives next to me or around my town. I hate swearing on things and all, but I assure you, he is not one of my accounts. Even if he is, he IS BLOCKED, like KingKong92 (my old account) SO HOW CAN I USE THEM? Please, have some COMMON SENSE. Their accounts are CLOSED and I CANNOT USE THEM. I really want to be UNBLOCKED. I'm so sad, honestly. (User talk:Greengobbie92)
 * I cannot look at the details of the accounts (with regards to IPs) as I am not a CheckUser, but the Sockpuppet investigation shows that the same IP (not the same range) was used by those accounts. Also, the fact that they are blocked is irrelevant to this discussion: the accusation is that you are using this account despite the fact that other accounts which appear to be yours have been blocked. As was mentioned above, this in itself is enough for a block, as 'block evasion'. I would advise you to read Farjad's message below. I will not be dealing with any more of your unblock requests (unless it was to either place it on hold pending a comment from the blocking admin, or I was convinced by your request and was to unblock you) as I have already declined a request. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Greengobbie92. Chill. I am not an administrator. But I would try to help out. According to the discussion here, User:Bidgee claims that King kong92 has confessed to being a sock puppet. You countered it by saying that you lost the accounts password. Then on the same discussion page, User:Tiptoety said that he checked the contributions of all three accounts and they were similar, including that of User:Graham 1973. You still need to counter this statement. Explain it to the administrators and your block might be lifted. Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The evidence of abuse of multiple accounts seems to be too strong to dismiss. The evidence is not only the checkuser results, but behavioural evidence too. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello (2)
About the unblock request by User:GreenGobbie92, I think he was not using his old account because he has lost its password - it is pretty much clearly written there. And about User:Graham1973, they could have a same IP address because they might live in same vicinity and use same ISP. Forgetting a password is pretty normal and common. I just want to help a good faith wikipedian get his account back. Give him a chance and keep an eye on him. Keep the other accounts blocked. Cheers. Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue of a lost password is irrelevant. This is a blocked user trying to evade a block. It is also a user who has abused multiple accounts (the evidence is not just the checkuser results, but behavioural evidence too.) It is also a user who has a history of various kinds of unhelpful editing. Whether or not it is a "good faith wikipedian", it is a Wikipedian who was not a net positive to Wikipedia. (Incidentally, you said User:GreenGobbie92 above, but in fact it is User:Greengobbie92. Because of this mistake, I had to search to find the real user. In the course of doing so I happened to stumble on evidence of sockpuppetry which I had not previously seen, and so the effect of your trivial slip has been to considerably strengthen my belief that the block is justified.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Behavioral evidence in what way? He may be learning how to use and edit wikipedia. Thats why he recently discovered userboxes. We all were newbies when we first arrived on wikipedia. But later we learned to cite our sources. He deserves to be blocked on behavioral evidence if he has vandalized a page. If so, which one? And besides the block request was because of sockpuppetry. (I) We need to see when was the last time the User:King kong92 was used. And when was the first time whenUser:Greengobbie92 was used. If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password. If the times do overlap, then he is wrong and deserves being accused of sock puppetry. (II) If only he is given another chance, is it not somehow possible, that two previous accounts are deleted or kept blocked and his Greengobbie92 account is unblocked. I am pretty sure he learned his lesson by now. He now knows that administrators have access to tools that he cannot escape. Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I find "If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password" totally bewildering. How on earth would it prove that? I am also puzzled as to why you don't just look at their editing histories and find out the dates. If you did so you would find that the respective dates were 6 December 2009 and 20 June 2010. Have you looked at the edit histories of all the various sock puppets? If you have and can still believe that the similarity of interests, the similarity of editing styles, etc etc are just chance coincidence then you surprise me. Then there are the similarities among some of the user names used (King kong922/King kong92, Greengoblin92/Greengobbie92). Yes, it is perfectly possible for different users to independently come up with such similar user names, but come up with such similar user names and edit on the same range of topics, often the same articles, and frequently make similar edits, with similar style, similar citing habits, similar introductions of OR, etc, and frequently have one account coincidentally start up shortly after another one has been blocked, and show up to a checkuser as being the same user? That many chance coincidences stretch credulity a long way.JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I NEVER said that he does not have more than one accounts. He himself confessed to it. His old account has NOT BEEN USED SINCE 2009. See for yourself...here...His new account was made because he lost his password...and now regularly contributes to it...see for yourself again......Now what this guy has to do to prove that he has shifted accounts because he lost his password somewhere in December 2009. As for behavioral problem you brought forward...he never did any vandalism...If so, then show us...The only behavioral problem that he is claimed to have is that his contributions are 'not up to level of a professional editor'...We do not block users because of that...According to five pillar of wikipedia...it does not matter if your edit is not perfect... Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. Perhaps if you laid out the history of the sock accounts and the associated blocks, you would notice the problem.  Would you like me to assist you in doing that?  Kuru   (talk)  14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please... Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 14:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

His original account was, created on 2/22/2006.

His second account was, created on 5/13/2006.

Concerns were raised by another editor that both accounts were editing climate related articles and both had racked up dozens of warnings (including many 'final' warnings) over their activities. The sock account (King kong922) was closed out, and the primary account was given a month long block on 12/6/2009.

He then quickly created on 12/8/2009, and it was blocked as a block evading sock the same day. The block on the original account was reset. Note that "losing the password" or whatever for the original account is not relevent; he is under a one month block.

He then creates another sock with on 12/22/2009. This account edits until 3/19/2010. If he had started this account after the one month block had expired, I would have seen a path forward here; but instead he simply ignored the block and edited away while the block was in place. At this point, the block on the primary account is extended to indefinite.

The rest of the socks and IP edits from this point on are simple block evasion - not in any way a legitimate use of alternate accounts or fresh starts. I would normally be open to the standard offer in cases like this, but looking at the warnings above before the block, it appears he is still having the exact same difficulties in editing here. His unblock requests do indeed seem to border on the 'deliberately obtuse'. I agree that if the next unblock request is not comprehensive, his talk pager access should be disabled so that no more time is wasted - I know I've spent too much time on it already. Kuru  (talk)  14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They're NOT my socks. You're very ignorant. They're my PREVIOUS accounts. You're so clueless and ignorant. .User talk:Greengobbie92


 * I guess, he was warned many times. I can't help him after such a long history of abuse. By the way, you are pretty darn good administrator. You explained everything perfectly. Thanks a lot. I would move on contributing to Wikipedia. Farjad 0322  (talk&#124;contribs) 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page editing disabled
As you have not only made multiple unblock requests but have taken an increasingly abusive tone in them, your access to editing this page has been revoked. If you wish to make a further appeal, you may contact the arbitration committee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)