User talk:L33t-Geek


 * But my IP or my account is not part of that is it?--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I undid my edit, your block is being discussed. -- lucasbfr  talk 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I see, thanks for your help.--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Respondants to the unblock request may be interested in this: . And in the edit summary it implied I had some conflict of interest.  I am entirely uninvolved in the edit war that is going on.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem like you already are predispositioned against me, but who know I could be wrong, I guess I should not just assume that, sorry.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have requested additional information from the adminstrator that has blocked you. Please be patient while we await his response.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify on the situation. I have added an NPOV tag to Kent Hovind because their are several POV statements, I was planning on a rewite and merge but have been blocked from editing.  I also tags a copyvio on Image:Kent_Hovind_Booking_Photo.jpg because being a mug shot it is subject to copyright and I wanted to clarify the validity of the fair use argument.  I don't see how honest tagging causes a problem.  Also as far as the sock puppet thing, was reading Sock_puppetry and this is my only account though it was registered not long ago and some of my edits spanned off to my IP account, I now just use this account to keep my edits togehter since my IP is dynamic.--L33t-Geek (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see all of that in your contibutions history. I have contacted the blocking admin.  Please await his response.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK will do, in the mean time can I get some clairification the the 3RR, because the tag was constantly being removed so I had to readd it, to me this I viewed as vandalism and so reverted without reguard to this rule, but I know it was mentioned on my IP talk page, so my question is would my edits be violating the 3RR, because this is the only rule I could think that may have been violated while I have been trying to work on this issue.--L33t-Geek (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why you were blocked is because you were posting both as l33t-geek and and anon - and using both to pile up the reverts on Kent Hovind, attempting to bypass the 3RR.
 * You were told that what you were reverting was NOT vandalism as there was a fair use rationale behind the copyrighted image you were removing. If you had issue with the fair use rationale you bring it up on IfD, NOT on the article in question. Hazillow (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whats Ifd, how is it diffrent from what I was using?--L33t-Geek (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What you were doing was removing an image that was uploaded to Wikipedia from its article; you were not removing the image itself. IfD is the process of removing images from Wikipedia that you feel are copyvios/inappropriate/etc. Hazillow (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Thanks for clairifying, glad I know that now.--L33t-Geek (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/71.217.206.152 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Baegis (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your email
I received your mail. While I understand that there is no 100% proof that it was your socks, this account's behaviour wasn't nice either. Please file another request for unblock. I suggest you to honestly reveal at least some things you wrote me. Max S em(Han shot first!) 10:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
As I have responded to unblock requests in the past from this person, I will not respond to this one directly. However, to any admin responding to this request, please be fully aware that the sockpuppetry allegations against this user do not relate to an old, dormant account, but to recent disruptions caused by multiple IP addresses and usernames, as outlined in both an SSP and a CHU case. See above, earlier unblock denials for full info on these cases. Otherwise, feel free to act on this unblock request as you see fit. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayron32, I have expanded my reasoning to cover your concerns.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you no longer a wiki sysop? Can you link to something supports your answer?
 * They de-sysop inactive users after some time on wikinews. See here its still only just a policy proposal but they seem to be following it already.--L33t-Geek (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You were unblocked then reblocked 3 days later. How do we know you won't give us reason to do that again? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first block was a misunderstanding of policy on my part, as well as a misunderstanding since I created this account in the middle of a series of edits which made it appear to be sockpuppetry, but since creating this account, I only edit under it.--L33t-Geek (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As the original blocking admin, I would support unblocking this person under the stipulation that they a) avoid edit warring and b) restrict themselves to using this account only to edit. Further conflict involving this editor, or further sockpuppetry problems, should result in a return of the block.  If another admin wants to unblock, I would support it with the understanding that, given the problems in the past, this account is under a higher level of scrutiny than the average editor... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ReliableSource
Template:ReliableSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-16t09:22z 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)