User talk:Psychology12345

Welcome!

 * Please take a look at the lengthy history of the Rorschach test image debate at Talk:Rorschach test (and the archives) and gather consensus before making changes to the imaging on the article. –xenotalk 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. –xenotalk 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this account and User:Zeitgest are clearly sock puppets for the point of edit warring, I have blocked both accounts. Chillum  00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon further consideration I am going to find an admin not involved in this debate to make this determination. Chillum  00:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know an investigation has been filed regarding the connection between this account and others: Sockpuppet investigations/Psychology12345. Chillum  18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * Comment: There were only two edits... one gentle warning, another (L3) stronger warning, both from me. Then a double-jeopardy warning based on duck evidence. –xenotalk 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will make no further comment or decision here after this one; three warnings should be enough. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A brief, amateur analysis of the writing styles does seem to indicate different people behind the keyboard. It could be the same keyboard, colleagues sharing an office, and whether the meatpupptry warrants keeping the indefinite block in place is another story. I would suggest Psychology12345 come back with a fresh username and attempt to gain consensus for removing the images rather than edit warring over them. –xenotalk 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? Because I find the styles to all be very similar. Same excuses, same run-on-paragraphs, same types of unblock requests, same repetition of unblock requests, same editing. I suggest Psychology12345 just use his main account instead of these new ones. Chillum  23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at how Zeitgeist likes to use double dashes and exclamation points and calls it the "Rorschach inkblot cards" whereas Psychology12345 calls it the "Rorschach Ink Blot images" and didn't use a single dash or exclamation. Also note Zeitgest's improperly formatted unblock request after Psychology12345 clearly figured out they needed to use the template. These look like distinct individuals to me. Perhaps if they would like to each send me an email from their institute-issued address (I will of course, keep this in confidence), I will issue an unblock with the reminder to discuss on the talk page gain consensus before removing images. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  13:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, you may blank or archive any or all of the above at your convenience. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, xeno.