User talk:Chasbo123

Chasbo123, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chasbo123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Phineas and Ferb (season 4) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dcbanners. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Phineas and Ferb (season 4) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dcbanners (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reach an agreement but you kept on saying that they are each individual. I even agreed to your edits. I tried to get both of our edits but you still disagreed. But there are more websites that have the right #s so you can have this one. There is still one more way to make this right. Count 22 min. episodes as 2 and 44 minute episodes as 4. If you say no then I just won't use this website anymore Chasbo123 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts

Hi, please stop adding font formatting in public spaces. This contravenes talk page guidelines, specifically the guidelines that instruct to not add unnecessary emphasis to your comments, and the guideline about keeping formatting clear. Though I understand you prefer this typeface, and you are welcome to use it on your own talk page, it is distracting, draws unnecessary attention and emphasis to your comment over other users' comments, and disrupts consistent formatting in public discussion space. If you submit the font formatting again, and I hope you don't, I will have no other choice but to bring you to the Administrators' noticeboard, and this would be an extraordinarily absurd thing to be brought to ANI for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 25 November 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).

Chasbo123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was alerted of a different case but not this one. somebody just came in and blocked me without reason. Chasbo123 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:30, 25 November 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.

Why was I blocked. Chasbo123 (talk) 01:41, 26 November 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).

Chasbo123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I simply went to edit a page and found myself blocked. There was no reason given for this block Chasbo123 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As has already been explained above and below, CheckUser determined that you were logging in with multiple accounts in violation of WP:SOCK policy. If you continue to make the same block appeal without addressing this issue, your talk page access will be revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 26 November 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.

(Non-administrator comment) This has been addressed above. I suggest you stop, if you continue making these requests, the block settings may be altered to prohibit you from editing this page. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked by an admin with Checkuser privileges. That means the admins have found out that you've been using multiple accounts in violation of the WP:SOCK policy. You're going to have to come up with a pretty convincing reason in an unblock request for any admin to unblock you. Blackmane (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the user's main account Hits hits might be at risk if he continues to play these fruitless sockpuppetry games. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]