User talk:JHerbertMunster

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, JHerbertMunster. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Edit warring at General Joseph Colton[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:JHerbertMunster and socks reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocks). EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for socking and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

I have amended your 1-week block to indefinite due to your latest socking (detailed in the archive of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster), and I indefinitely blocked your two new alternative accounts. Please allow me to say this very clearly: you may not use multiple accounts on Wikipedia in an abusive manner, and if you continue to do so your editing access to the encyclopedia will remain revoked. I encourage you to re-read the sock-puppetry and other important policies, and to try to better understand how Wikipedia works, before even thinking about returning as an editor. AGK [•] 20:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request May 1st[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for the way I was behaving and editing articles on Wikipedia. By trying to push my own POV so disruptively, I not only wasted Wikipedia's time but also my own and successfully accomplished nothing. I understand now this is not the way Wikipedia works. I would like to ask that I be unblocked so that I may have a another chance at contributing to Wiki. I am also making a great effort to educate myself more on the Wikipedia policies and rules. Please give me a second opportunity, and thank you for your time. I also understand that abusing multiple accounts is not acceptable through Wikipedia and will use only this established account, if given the chance.JHerbertMunster (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Flat out NO. Neither you, your "brother", your hamster, nor the monster in your closet are welcome on Wikipedia. You AGREED to policies when you signed up to this private website: you wantonly break them all. Go find a different game to play somewhere else - this is an encyclopedia, not a toy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 1 May 2012 (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.

Question

One of your socks, claiming to be your brother, has just been unblocked following this request. Could you please elaborate on your plans for future editing in case you are unblocked? Favonian (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No he really is my brother we share the same room and network but have two different computers, there is nothing we can do about that but you already know our network range. Well I have already finished reading Wikipedia:Tutorial and am planning to gain a better understanding of some more policies of Wikipedia editing. I would actually like to expand further on the Colton (surname) article I created through my one sock account User:PurpleSteak as well as maybe join a Wiki collaboration for genealogy or ancestry article improvement because I have already been studying some information about my own ethnicity (I am a Colton) and feel it would be nice to create a source of information for other people interested in the family. If you will give me the chance, I would like to establish an article on our original group of Irish ancestors the O'Comhaltains, if you will allow me to do so could also reference me to some appropriate information on creating such articles on Wikipedia, and thank you for your time. And I would also like to apologize to User:FortDj33 and let him know that I will not bother with the General Joseph Colton article anymore and they do not need to worry about protecting it from me. JHerbertMunster (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of any interest to you, I was declining your unblock request, but BWilkins beat me to it. Here is what I wrote in the unblock decline message that I was going to post: Even while this unblock request was waiting, you continued to use one of your sockpuppet accounts to restore reverted editing by another one of your sockpuppet accounts. You have used up all the store of assuming good faith that was due to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]