User talk:Drinkreader

This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking.
(block log · contributions · discussion at AN/I)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Screwdriver (cocktail) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Screwdriver (cocktail) was changed by Drinkreader (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957804 on 2014-01-31T17:14:30+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Screwdriver (cocktail), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hitro talk 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Drinkreader, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. If you need assistance, check out the Getting Help section below or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Cordially, Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Our five pillars • A tutorial • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments • Help desk • Teahouse • Help directory Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • List of guidelines • Three-revert rule • Copyrights Image use policy • Policy for non-free content • Notability • Deletion policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Conflict of interest • Sock puppetry

Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation The perfect article • Peer review • Featured content
The community
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette Build consensus • Resolve disputes • No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump • Signpost • IRC channels
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages • Portals Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts Awards that registered contributors can achieve and award

Talkback

Hello, Drinkreader. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink.
Message added 10:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mojito may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

sign makes no mention of lime juice. "Some of the more famous hangouts of the era were Cuba's La) Bodeguita del Medio, where autographed walls are a testimony to pre- Castro glory days. The Mojito,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sour (cocktail) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

on the ... - Page 263 by John Huxham in 1764</ref> Then later in 1778 "The wet-nurse to (he earth's produce, With sugar, rum, and lemon juice, A nectar fit for godly use" <ref>The lady's

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Milk punch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

- Page 113 in 1714</ref>"The Ingredients are Brandy, Rack, or Rum, Water warm or cold, Lemon, Sugar) sometimes a little Milk is added, which denotes it Milk-Punch."<ref>A new theory of physick and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted your edit to Mint julep; however, I have corrected the publication date of the book. Please remember to assume good faith in fellow editors and work with them, at article talk pages, to reach a consensus version of pages. You should not take an adversarial approach to editing by threatening to report any editor who disagrees with your work to the administrator's noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of the editing history of the various IP addresses from which you have been editing shows that you have been receiving messages about various disruptive aspects of your editing over a long period. To my knowledge, you received more than one warning that your self-promotional editing would be likely to lead to being blocked at least as far back as June 2013, and other warnings about various problems have followed during the intervening period. I do not have the slightest doubt that if any administrator had been aware of your full history, you would have been blocked long ago. In addition to that, when you eventually were blocked, you repeatedly evaded blocks, both by switching to other IP addresses and by creating an account. That being so, you would almost certainly now be blocked indefinitely had anyone been fully aware of the problems. I have compromised, by extending the current block on this account to one month from time when it was imposed. Please be aware that while any block that was placed to prevent you editing is still in place, you may not edit. Evading any block may lead to a substantial increase in the length of the block, whether that block was applied to an IP address or to an account, and whether the block evasion is done anonymously or from an account. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clear alot of this up in wikipedia=en=help but I assume nothing was done. There are many things I am being accused of that are simply not true.

Accusations: step by step:

1. disruptive editor for at least a year

issue: according to your own admins, I never made an edit before last may, and to further credit myself, I only made a few edits in may , when I realized I didnt know how to edit correctly I left, and was INACTIVE until two weeks ago. So technically, I have been on wikipedia a little over two weeks. TWO WEEKS DOES NOT EQUAL ONE YEAR.

2. continues to promote his books

This is ridiculous, I do not, I have not promoted my books since I was told not to and I appreciate some truth and validity from admins on this fact. I was told not to promote my self published work and I didn't after I was told.

3. "blank paging"

The one screwdriver page, which you can clearly see in the talk page I asked to remove, not only did I recommend it be sourced and cited, but so does other contributors and wikipedia itself, lets please clear that up. A bot reverted it, it is really false completely unsourced and unnecessary, see for yourself please.

4. my references are OR

OMG this has got to be the one that kills me, you can clearly see that "my references" (meaning early printings of drinks in other sourced publications) and NOT MEANING (my books) Vastly and dramatically improve this encyclopedia, so please stop confusing the two, it is not OR, INFACT I DIRECTLY QUOTE THE EARLY REFERENCES! something that is not done by other contributors on the subject.

5. I am not a cocktail historian

Just because I am a recognized expert master mixologist does not mean I am not a cocktail historian either, which I have a proven track record for historically accurate information over and over again. An english teacher (david wondrich) and a microsoft employee (robert hess) certainly aren't valid experts on history either in that case. So lets be fair, again MY INFORMATION IS SOURCED, ACCURATE, AND FAR EARLIER THAN CURRENT VERSIONS.

6. Those early references are dated wrong

Apparently you people have no clue how to gbp works and as seen from my edits I make enormous strives to maintain historical accuracy, I showed on mint julep:Talk how the claim for the revert is it dates to "1850" but then showed you a book from 1997 with the same exact author. PLease stop being ridiculous, there are 6 billionn people alive, how many do you think lived before? OF COURSE SOME ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME NAME, not to mention, people have children and name them after themselves. I actually research my references, not just make bogus claims saying stuff existed when it didn't.

7. Continues to log in from different IPS

This very statement would give the impression I am not trying to evade, if I am evading why in the fuck would I log in? Do I really need to explain my whole life situation why I have different ips from multiple places right now?

You guys only made seven proven false claims about me, whatever, I guess I should be "grateful" for letting me stay, when you all boldly claim you want my sources without crediting meDrinkreader (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add all these nice "cacthes" that I am being accused of ironically already appear on these same pages.. . . . .. . . you only "catch" what you want to and even plato said not so beautifully that we can rationalize everything with our mind, even if he didnt realize he was saying itDrinkreader (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"According to David Herpin..."

The attribution should be to the work cited. Based on your edits today, David Herpin has been writing books on bartending and drinks for over 150 years. This seems dubious, at best. Any attribution should be to the work being cited, not to any researcher doing derivative work from the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for continuing the same self-promotional editing that you have been doing for at least 10 months. Of the fifteen article edits you have made since the expiry of your last block, thirteen opened with the words "According to David Herpin", and one with the words "David Herpin claims". That in itself, in the context of your past history, would have been enough reason for the block, but in addition, as C.Fred has pointed out, the attributions to yourself were in any case spurious. By now, you should have grasped the point that Wikipedia does not accept that kind of editing. If you don't like contributing to an encyclopaedia that has the sorts of policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has on promotion and conflict of interest, then you don't have to contribute. However, as long as you do choose to contribute, abiding by our policies is not optional, and you will continue to be blocked if you continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drinkreader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

c.fred and jamesbwatson let me just say first thank you for helping me understand this. I completely understand why I am blocked and I am sorry I am making your already hard job even more difficult. I promise you I will never add my name to my research again nor will I try to add any other type off contribution that is not a very reliable source to help improve the current versions of cocktail wikipedia pages. I am very sorry I have been so disruptive and clearly not getting it, but I do truly understand. Whether you lift the ban or not, this does not change how I feel. I am really sorry, I see now how inappropriate I have been acting. In the future if ever, I will only make useful contributions adhering strictly to wikipedias policies and not be concerned if others are or not. I am so sorry. You will not have this problem again, with me anyway, I promise. I want you both to have a good night and again im sorry. according to nobody

Decline reason:

This pattern of behavior has been going on for ten months. You have not been willing to follow our policies. Waiting three months before returning to edit is probably the minimum needed. It's lucky this block was not made indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drinkreader (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Drinkreader (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being duscussed at User_talk:Doc9871#Gauntlet and User_talk:JamesBWatson#Unblock_request. HTH SQL ^{Query me!} 08:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drinkreader is really just a spammer who is not here to build an encyclopedia. It is abundantly clear with the socking, and the redundant "David Herpin" garbage. Junk like "Master Mixologist David Herpin" . Seriously? No one gives a crap what that person says about all those drinks. A joke. Doc talk 08:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, If I have done something personal to offend you, I sincerely apologize and guarantee it was not intentional. I can also assure you that these issues you describe are no longer my concern. I truly wish to contribute to this project and for nothing more to improve current versions of the project that are historically inaccurate or false. I'm sorry you feel so heavily inflicted by my actions, if I had known I offended you I would have apologized to you much earlier. I would want you to have a great day.Drinkreader (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing to offend me at all, so there's no need to apologize. Doc talk 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Old Fashioned. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Blackguard 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

da heck

Whatever the heck this nonsense is, see WP:LEGAL. This is enough to ban you on sight, I just can't be bothered to report you, but whatever your problem is -- it's not even clear what you're on about -- go sleep it off. Herostratus (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second though looking at your talk page above, that's enough, I will now report you. Herostratus (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

does it really matter? There is a clear personal bias, when I meet the same standards as possibly mildly mentally challenged people who believe sticking ginger up a horses rear end is were the name cocktail comes from.

I, nor any of my copyrighted work is appropriately accredited, yet it's here. I could care less about wikipedia's guidelines, you are breaking the law by copyright infringing, which overrules any wikipedia standard. This will only expedite the process seeing as I can no longer contact you in 24 hours.

Banning me will accomplish nothing on your end because I am not already accredited, so you cant resteal information or remove it to hurt me, because I am already not accredited appropriately.

Does it really matter now? Of course not, I could easily pay the filing fees, but im not even sure I want to even do that, im not a vindictive type person. It's really not worth fighting, do whatever you want, I dont control you.

July 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Drinkreader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to first state that I have read wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks. I must agree that the block was indeed necessary because I was being disruptive. I wont deny that I also violated other wikipedia's policies, albeit unknowingly. I understand the goal of a block, according the wikipedia's guide to appealing a block is to ensure the user understands wikipedias policies and prevent them from being a disruptive in the future. I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for you, so it's not to disrupt your day. I know what I did was wrong now, I know other policies I was full aware of and breaching. However, I will say, when a policy was brought up to me I followed it instantly. I also must say that I can't give you a solid enough reason to unblock me other than a promise. That's all I can do. I cant prove to you I will read every policy and will not violate one in the future. Because chances are, if I was infact unblocked, at some point in the future I might violate a policy unaware of my behavior. I have read that it's not your position to discuss policies, and to ensure that the user understands the problematic behavior and prevent it in the future. Where would I discuss my future behavior with an admin? I'm not suggesting an instant unblock, I feel a year would be fair, I would just want to know how and were to discuss this with an admin? Drinkreader (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The legal threat was withdrawn. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could start by actually reading the link I gave you above regarding why I blocked you. This has nothing to do with disruption; you have made a threat to take legal action against Wikipedia, and for legal reasons we do not allow people in these circumstances to make further edits to Wikipedia until eithe the legal action has taken place and is resolved, or the threat is explicitly withdrawn. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for assuming that, that was a given. I would think it would be very anti-advantageous to ask for an unblock while pursuing legal action, when this is the reason the block was created in the first place. I was under the impression that you would assume I would not be taking any type of legal, civil or criminal action. Im sorry for the confusion. I have made personal attacks against other editors. I was letting you know I am aware that these behaviors violate wikipedias policies as well.

You've made a legal threat at Talk:Cape Codder (cocktail). If you're prepared to state unequivocally that you in fact were not making a legal threat then I'm willing to unblock you. Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly state that I am not and will not make legal threats and actions.Drinkreader (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked. Please don't do that again. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on French 75 (cocktail). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at administrators' incidents board, October 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Hello. This message is to inform you that pursuant to this discussion, you have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the community. For more information on what this means, see WP:BAN. For information on appealing this ban, see WP:SO. Regards, Swarm talk 19:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ban evading

Hi, im not evading a ban, i was banned for ban evasion, but at that time i wasnt actually banned. My ban had expired. I would appreciate you not being retarded and looking at the actual log and use those critical thinking and reading comprehension skills you claim to posses, otherwise tell me how long my "ban" is and i will do more time, i dont care. You cant hide the truth forever,the truth always comes to light. And even if its after my death, 100 years from now people will be reading this archived conversation thinking "can you believe how stupid that mother fucker is? They literally would rather believe ginger in the rear of a horse was more reliable than a heavily documented importation bill in early america." And youll have to live with that, or atleast you decendants will if you ever have any. Flex that internetz powerz, but at the end of the day, you cant truly ban me, and you're the one who will look foolish in years to come. But as i said, if you still choose to claim im ban evadin, give me a wait time and i will wait.

You were community banned per this [1] discussion and your account was indefinitely blocked so you are evading a ban and even if you weren't you would be evading a block. If you feel the ban was improper, you're welcome to appeal it. Until and unless you successfully appeal it, you remain banned and any editing on your part if ban evasion.

If you choose to accept your are banned and want to appeal in the future, WP:Standard offer suggests a minimum of 6 months before an appeal with absolutely no ban evasion. This means you need to stop editing anywhere on the English wikipedia, with any IP or any account be it talk pages, articles or other pages. Yes even my talk page. Since even discounting this edit to my talk page, you evaded your ban with this IP 6 months will start from now if you stop now.

Note when appealing you also need to convince the community that you will able to edit without causing significant problems, especially the problems that got you into trouble in the first place. While I can't speak for the community I will say I've never see anyone who insists that they are definitely right or super smart of whatever and everyone else is completely wrong or an idiot be successful in an appeal. Recognising why the community saw your behaviour as a problem, and how you can avoid it in the future is generally the most basic second step to a successful appeal. (First being no evasion for at least 6 months.)

Note that I have no involvement in your disputes, and have no real knowledge of them. But even if there was no ban evasion, I would assume that you're wrong. Again it's my experience that I can safely assume anyone who insists on how right and smart they are and how everyone else is wrong an an idiot, is in fact the one who is completely wrong and not worth listening to. Most people who are right are able to let the sources speak for themselves.

BTW, since you retain talk page access on your original account, you can edit your original account talk page although you should do so by logging back into your account and can only edit your talk page to appeal your ban. If for some reason you can't or don't want to log back in to your original account, take a ready of WP:UNBAN for other ways to appeal. It will probably also be acceptable to edit your talk page to seek clarification within reason, if you're still confused about aspects of your ban. Although I don't really see what confusion there is. As I said, you are banned end of story and any editing except to appeal your ban on your account talk page is ban evasion. If you think the ban was unfair in any way, you need to appeal it not evade it. Telling people who unfair the ban was, or how smart or right you are or how wrong or dumb everyone else is, is not likely to be seen as an acceptable use of your talk page so I suggest you minimise that.

Note I am cross posting this to your original account talk page since it's the only place you're allowed to edit. I won't report you for editing my talk page provided you don't do something stupid, but I will report you if you continue to evade your ban elsewhere. But others may not be so generous, so I suggest you refrain from evading your ban by editing my talk page. In any case, it doesn't seem there is anything more for you to say. I'm not interested in hearing details of your dispute nor in why you feel your ban was improper so there's little point posting them.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I disagree. This nonsense has been going on for years, it's been explained over and over and over how things work here and how to be a productive member of this community, which would have been helpful given the editor's apparent expertise and access to sources on this topic, but they've refused time and time again. IP blocked for a year. I suggest you go write a blog, Wikipedia's not for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drinkreader: I just read this through and I see you were already told about the standard offer and not editing for (at least) 6 months). I'm sorry you don't seem to understand this part, and the nastiness at the beginning of this section gives me pause. You certainly need to take to heart Nil Einne's words. Please reread the advice above and heed it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drinkreader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when editing, I also understand Wikipedia's blocking policy and i understand why I was blocked. I was indef banned because I was blocked and evading a block unknowingly. I have purposefully logged in to my original account so there can be no confusion as to who I am. Whats so confusing is i didnt actually edit any wikipedia page. I was only making suggestions on talk pages. So its not like i was being disruptive. Anytime a policy has been mentioned to me i have followed it strictly. I was told about self promotion, i havent once self promoted since being told. I was told about legal threats, i havent once made a legal threat since being told. I was told to work with the community and ask before you edit. I havent even edited any wikipedia pages, only talk pages. Ive come to realize there is absolutely nothing i can do about my work being stolen, its going to get stolen, moving on. What i can do though is help you steal it and atleast steal it right. Heres what i purprose and why i think i should be unbanned and unblocked. Because i will be a significant contributor obeying all policies and refraining from self promotion 100%. That means i will give you all my references to over 250 wikipedia pages that will drastically improve the articles by a 1000%. I will leave references only on the talk pages. That way there is nothing to discuss. You dont have to agree with me. Its there. If you allow me to stay in the community you might be surprised what a useful and delightful contributor i can be. If not, theres nothing i can do about it. I dont have really have anything to say, its not my decision and according to some of your mods, im not worth listening to. Perhaps, but your missing out, big time. You think you wont be like "ah whatever he doesnt know what hes talking about". Thats okay, theres nothing i can do about it. I can promise you if you let me contribute you will be absolutely amazed at my contributitons. There wont be any scrapping or reverting or anything like that, just straight knowledge thats it. I dont care if someone thinks its unpopular and doesnt agree and says something distasteful, im not even going to respond. I have nothing to do but add references to talk pages, thats it. Whether truth is accepted is not up to me so i dont care, there is nothing i can do about it. All i can do is follow the rules and be a good editor. Who knows, one day i might get one of those awards for being such a useful contributor. I really mean what i say, i intend to contribute and work with every single person in the community, no matter the circumstance. You wont catch me arguing over anything. I want to help and not only be a member of the community, but a member in good standing, thats a great contributor. I would like an opportunity, but if not oh well. Ill be upset about it, but its not like im going to do anything about it, as if i could, ill just accept it and go away. Its up to you

Decline reason:

Earlier this month, you posted such gems as "I would appreciate you not being retarded", "use those critical thinking and reading comprehension skills you claim to posses", "can you believe how stupid that mother fucker is?", "Flex that internetz powerz", and this gem of a threat, "at the end of the day, you cant truly ban me". You clearly have no place here at this time. You are welcome to make an unban request in six months from today, if but only if you have refrained from all further edits, anywhere on Wikipedia. At that point, I suggest you review WP:UNBAN and WP:GAB and take responsibility for your totally inappropriate behaviour. Yamla (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drinkreader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel this block was fair, I only disagree with the length of the block. I take responsibility for what i said to others. I understand why i have been blocked and i have no intention on repeating any of the same mistakes. I believe i should be unblocked, atleast not blocked indefinitely. Because of the contributions i can make will significantly improve the current encyclopedia. I intend to work with every member of the community as best i can. Because ive been a member for a long time and thats just the registered name, ive been around alot longer. Because i want to one day be an admin or atleast a top contributor. Because the block is no longer necessary. I have absolutely zero intention on being disruptive, even in the very least bit. There are alot of reasons why i should be unblocked. But I get it, if you still feel its necessary, i really do understand. I said awful things, there is no need to remind me, i cant take it back. I really do want to comeback and be a great contributor. I dont have anyway to prove it other than after the fact. I want the chance to prove to you i can change, ive made it clear I dont want to even disagree with any other wikipedia community member, i just want to contribute following Wikipedia's guidelines and move on. If nothing else, I would feel its fair to set a definite time on my block, as opposed to indef. That really feels horrible knowing you can never contribute.Drinkreader (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. This is no ordinary block, but a block imposed to enforce a WP:CBAN. A community discussion will be needed to unblock you. You seek a time limit-- customarily you may apply for the standard offer 6 months after your block. In your case, it would be 6 months after your last edit. It means you must refrain from editing (and block evasion) for 6 months, including your talk page. I see from Yamla's decline above that the 6 months starts from December 10 and that your untoward behavior has been quite recent. See you in 6 months. Here is the permalink to the relevant discussion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Anyone else who considers a future unblock request or ban appeal from this editor ought to be aware that subsequent to the above claim that they were not evading their ban, they posted this threat to my talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"You are welcome to make an unban request in six months from today, if but only if you have refrained from all further edits, anywhere on Wikipedia" Drinkreader, I'm sorry to see you refused to take advantage of this but instead doubled-down on your abusive behaviour. I will strongly oppose any unban request you make under the terms of WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Seeking exact clarification from banning administrator(s) and/or community as to why i was banned to begin with. I must know what behaviors to stop if i ever want to be part of the community again.

Here is a link to where the ban discussion was closed: [2]. That thread explains the behavioural concerns pretty clearly and provides links to demonstrate the problem actions. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

I support a permaban for repeated and blatant sockpuppetry. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drinkreader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was last blocked in oct 2018, nearly two years ago. I have made zero attempts to evade a ban that was placed on me. I have logged into this original account per unban policy, I am requesting an unblock for the following reasons. 1. Have made zero threats towards any wikipedia user since ban 2. have made zero attempts to evade ban since ban 3. have made conscience effort to review wikipedias guidelines and policies 4. I intend to contribute in accordance with WP rules and guidelines 5. I have a great deal of raw source references in regards to my subject of expertise 6. I am more than willing to share my knowledge, for free for far more reasons than this, but I believe it would be in everyones best interest if I was able to contribute the absurdity that I can prove( WITH CURRENT REFERENCES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE) is not even laughable Drinkreader (talk) 12:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Based on your comments below about another user where you accuse them of stalking and "very unhealthy behavior", I'm not even going to bother submitting this to WP:AN. This would have no chance of getting community support if you're making comments like that. only (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drinkreader, because this is a community ban, it must be appealed through our administrators' noticeboard. Since, obviously, you cannot edit there, I or another user can copy a request to the noticeboard for community consideration. Is the information that is currently in your unblock request template exactly what you want copied over to the noticeboard? Once you've confirmed the text you want placed there, someone will handle. only (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes thats fine, I am not angry with the guy who has some obvious bias, im not going to let that detour or even effect me. If my life is so interesting to them they are actively seeking to not allow me to edit, I honestly feel great pity, but furthermore, froma mental health prospective, this is very unhealthy behavior to have towards a stranger you know little to nothing about, thats just my professional opinion. Its borderline stalking, legally.

August 2020

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

only (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]