User talk:No stopping 123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent No stopping 123 (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Speedy deletion of The Used 4th studio album

A tag has been placed on The Used 4th studio album requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kkmurray (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "what is going on here??? i was editing pages and it says i have sock pupit accounts, whatever that means and now it says i can never edit again, this is ridicolous, i didnt violate any rules or anything and i was putting sources for every info i put down and now i cant edit, some1 please fix this"

Decline reason: "You have used multiple sockpuppet accounts to abuse pages, either in the form of inappropriately removing speedy deletion tags, or owning articles, treating them like they are yours. I see no rationale for unblocking at this point in time. Spebi 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

i didnt remove speedy deletion, i contacted the person who put it up and they removed it, zzuuzz shud be banned 4ever from getting to be an administtrater casue they falsy block me sooo many times, i dont use sock puppets and its all lies and slanders, some1 better effing unlbock me soon this is just effing bullshit, zzuuzz makes anything they want up and says that is why they blocked me and its all lies...no thats not happening, if ur gona be that ignorant get me an administrator who noes what they are doing cause this is so unfair that some1 could block me 4 no reason and say i did something that i didnt No stopping 123 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


i think the problem here is im using aol and it uses shared IP adresses and my account was falsly blocked becasue of it. No stopping 123 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


The following sockpuppets of yours have been blocked:

Your multiple accounts, edit warring, and article ownership issues are disruptive and unacceptable. You have been blocked multiple times for edit warring and sockpuppetry and have shown no ability to work with others. Your behaviour on The Used 4th studio album being a typical example where you created two sockpuppets to remove a speedy tag, and this was on top of the three or four accounts you already created in the last 24 hours in order to reinstate edits you have been reinforcing since the summer. Enough. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)



some of those arent even mine so your definitly confused here the acounts myway89 and this time 18 were mine and i reconizr noway419 of a friends account but u blocked thoose 3 for no apparent reason, every article i write i put scources of where i got the information...and i made the account just4noww because i thought after my account was blocked that it was never unblocked and it was my pc ip adress that was unblocked and i had to make a new account, idk what ur talking about on the 4th album, i made the article then some1 said it was speedy deleted so i contacted them and then i saw the speedy delte was gone so i thought they removed it and i put a perfectly good source in that artcle which had a confirmation right out of the elad singers mouth, so idky u think i have 1000 accounts but i only had like 3 and u blocked them so i made a new one yesterday when my block expired and i did nothing worng, ...all i did was make a new page and put a source of where i got that info from and then u blocked me so u really have ot unblock me now becasue there was no reason 4 me to be blocked in the first place and if ur not going to work with me and let me make one edit which i provide a source for, then send a administrater to my page who will becasue all ur blocks on me are 4 no reason and 100% false. No stopping 123 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim you're on AOL and these are other people — however, the IP address above claimed to be you is not an AOL address. Would you mind logging out, then signing this page, to confirm you're using an AOL account? This is just a request; you are not at all obligated to do so and your request will be fully evaluated even if you don't. However, it would help me at least understand what's going on here. --Haemo (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
i just tried to do this but the ip adress is blocked as well which doesnt allow me to edit this page, it seems here like me and th euser zzuuzz were on the wron apge with each other, i was banned for amonth for using 3 accounts so i made a new 1 when the block was up casue i thought my others were terminated and i 4got the apssword so i made one more so that made zzuuzz think that i was making sock puupet accounts so they thought o no here he goes again so they indefinitely blocked me, they also said i have a problem with page owner ship, ill admit i edit the used page alot since they are my fav band but i provided sources for the info i put and if sum1 makes a similar edit they think its me so i think theres jsut been a bit of confusing with everything and on my part too with not noing all the rules of wikiepedia, i think i should be unblocked and ill make a new account that u can watch over to see the edits i make and all so u no im not doing anything wrong, i think zzuuzz jsut doesnt like me and finds any reason to ban me, so please unblock me ill make a new account so i can start over fresh on wikipedia and ill message with my new account and from there ull no what i edit and decide if im doing anything wrong casue i realli dont feel like i deserve to be banned 4ever becasue i like to update my fav bands page and have an extra useranme. No stopping 123 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "i was falsy blocked by zzuuzz,maybe something to do with an aol ip adress but some1 needs to unblock me casue i was fasly blocked No stopping 123 (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "You say you were falsely blocked, but above you acknowledge using multiple accounts, which is what you were blocked for. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

You know, I would really like you to be able to contribute here, but for the reasons explained to you many times before, you make this very difficult. I've considered outlining an agreement to allow you to edit again, but until you acknowledge there is a problem here I am not prepared to do that. I would like you to consider the following sample of edits:

  • Noway419 [1]
  • Myway89 [2]
  • Thistime19 [3]
  • Nightbird135 [4]
  • Xotheusedguyox [5]
  • Emsports [6]
  • 72.187.96.201 [7]
  • Just4noww [8]

This is just one example of where you - and only you - have been corrected multiple times, since at least 16 June 2007, and you have refused to acknowledge what others are trying to tell you. You have refused to let others continue to improve the article and insisted on reinstating your own edits, even if it involves going against consensus and guidelines, edit-warring without any discussion and using multiple accounts to get your way. Not only does this hold the encyclopaedia back but it makes for an uncongenial editing environment. You and your edits have generated numerous complaints from hard-working editors and you have paid absolutely no attention to them, even after several blocks. Your recent sockpuppetry to remove the speedy tag after a day full of sockpuppetry to restore your previous edits was the final straw. You have so far admitted three of these users are you. I think it is painfully obvious there are more. We know you're not using AOL because your IP above was recently blocked for a month for sockpuppetry, a fact you acknowledge in your unblock request. To your credit you do not appear to have engaged in sockpuppetry during this recent block, unlike previously [9]. We can tell because no account made any reversions. I expect this abstinence was only out of necessity because immediately after the block expired you returned to make more sockpuppets and make the same edits that were corrected before, and that you've been edit-warring over for the last six months. This cannot and will not continue.

Please review the previous discussions with your numerous accounts, the policies and guidelines that you have been frequently referred to, and feel free to drop me a line, perhaps by email, when you can acknowledge each and every problem going on here. Your IP address is currently blocked for 3 months, I would have no problem with a reduction of the block on this account to the same length if this is the name you would choose. As I have indicated I will also consider shortening this block even further but only after you stand up to acknowledge what is going on here and why you are not helping. I would then expect you to make certain undertakings. Please take a couple of weeks to familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines before composing a reply. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "^^^^yes i was banned for having multiple accounts but i already served that banned so to start over fresh im using this account and thats it, ive already served my sock puppet ban and ur saying u cant unban me becasue of sock puppets, but i already served that ban and start over fresh, and i really am using AOL but i also used internet explorer casue sometimes my aol suxks and doesnt let me sign on but my ban 4 sock puppet has been served, all the reasons u said u cant unblock me is 4 things in th past that i have already served a banned for so that is why u have to unblock me and understand why i say im falsy blocked...im dene my time and now i should be free to edit what i want. No stopping 123 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "If you were banned, you don't "serve" a ban...you stay banned. — IrishGuy talk 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "to the guy above me...how stupid r u jack, a ban expires then u get unbanned, none of u admins no what ur doing and that is why i am banned now, my banned expired 3 days ago and then 4 no reason at all i was banned again for the same reason i already served a banned for, so right now i am falsly banned and some1 better unban me No stopping 123 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "You are banned, as several other administrators have explained above. Sorry. krimpet⟲ 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.