User talk:Pickbothmanlol

Block reinstated
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene talk 12:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the background. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand my block. I honestly found it nice to be given a second chance at editing for a brief moment even though it would most likely not last long. Despite the block being reinstated, thanks for letting me have another chance at it. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am thankful for that gesture of good faith. Please reconsider. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   16:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to do this one, since I declined to unblock one of your other socks and don't think your last unblock was a good idea, but I would ask why we should believe you? You have admitted to a huuuuge pile of socks(see this revision: ), you rapidly began engaging in disruptive behavior very shortly after being unblocked last time, and you have not given us any real reason to unblock you now other than your "belief" that you can avoid doing it again. I would strongly caution any admin reviewing this request to make sure they are familiar with the history of this user and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pickbothmanlol before considering unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that list, however if you did have the time to look through the contributions of each one you should notice one obvious trait. That trait being many failed attempts at starting out clean without having to see that one single category ever again. It has become obvious that the community of this site has always had that one tiny flaw being that attempting to argue with the administration of this site is pointless. All those people that were unfairly blocked because their bloody edits look simular to a user that I have no relation with YET I have no choice but to lie that I am indeed that account because reasoning on Wikipedia is as pointless as asking Adolf Hitler not to be hateful to Jews. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourty-two attempts to start off new, FOURTY-TWO ATTEMPTS TO LEAVE THE PAST TO TURN TO DUST, FOURTY-FILLIPING-TWO ATTEMPTS TO NO LONGER DEAL WITH THIS CRAP. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The obvious question you need to ask yourself is "what am I doing wrong that has seen me burn through 42 accounts?". Crafty (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Being unable to prove I had no relations with the first user listed on my first SPI case led me into this mess. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would respectfully disagree. You've got a history of troublesome constributions which have led you to receive adverse attention. The patience of community has worn thin and thus you find yourself here. You need to reflect on that rather than seeking to blame circumstance for your predicament. Crafty (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would find it more convient if you could simplify that comment so I can better understand what your trying to tell me. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's trying to tell you that you are making up rationalizations for your actions that do not make sense. You were unblocked this last time as a display of good faith to see if you really had changed, and you rapidly proved that you were unable to edit Wikipedia in a non-disruptive fashion. Don't sit here and play the innocent victim and expect anyone to actually believe it. Many of your admitted previous socks were outright vandals, leaving messages like "I am AndyCrogonka and I will not be stopped" and so forth. Anyway, you've done enough as this account to be blocked regardless of any connection to your monstrous farm of abusive sockpuppets. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, Pickbothmanlol now that you are unblocked I recommend taking a look at WP:CSD for cases where a page may be summarily deleted so that you don't flood pages at XfD. Do be careful with it though.  Triplestop  x3  02:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images, however, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously. No non-free images in template space. Got it? DS (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.  -Pickbothmanlol-   19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles
I have reverted your nomination of Netscape Navigator 9 at Featured article review. That process is for re-assessing articles that are already featured. If you wish to nominate an article for consideration to become featured, the correct process is at Featured article candidates. However, please read the instructions at the top of the page carefully: if you wish to nominate an article that is not primarily your work, you should consult the significant contributors to the article prior to nominating it. Maralia (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello, Pickbothmanlol. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disruptive editing. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a result of the ANI discussion above (permanent link), I have reimposed your indefinite block for persistent disruption due to a lack of general editing competence. The block may be lifted after a few months if you can cogently explain how your condition, medical or otherwise, has changed in such a way that you will no longer make disruptive edits, and if you demonstrate your competence by drafting a new article on your user talk page that meets, or comes close to meeting, WP:GACR.  Sandstein   18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Noting here for the record (in the case of any unblock request) that Pickbothmanlol has created many sockpuppet accounts to continue his disruptive editing, as reported by checkuser at .  Sandstein   06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ways I can still try to help contribute to the project while being blocked?
Helpme Are there any ways I can still try to help contribute to the project while being blocked?  -Pickbothmanlol-  02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ...especially not when you evade your indefinite block by using sock puppets like User:BigFuzzyKitty. MuZemike 02:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Aelogo black on blue.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aelogo black on blue.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Sammy the Seeker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/CrackedLeo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User-Cold
Template:User-Cold has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. B (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 03:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2013
It looks like the editor who added the banned user template substituted it where it should have been transcluded.

The following wikitext:

should be replaced with

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)