User talk:Hits hits

Use of edit summaries

I noticed that you don't use edit summaries. While this is not generally required it is a courteous way to help other editors understand the reason behind your edits. It is required by policy, however, when you copy content from one article to another as explained in Copying within Wikipedia. Most experienced editors habitually use edit summaries. If you ever intent to become an administrator consistent use of edit summaries is one of the things looked for as part of the evaluation process. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

One more attempt here. You MUST use edit summaries for some things. One is when you make major changes to an article such as removal of massive amounts of content. Tell the rest of us why and what you are doing. The other is when you copy content from one article into another you MUST say where the content came from in the edit summary when you add the content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel 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:

• *''Get'cha Head in the Game'' 2007 – present)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to List of Mr. Young episodes ‎, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Please add a reference for the upcoming episodes. Right now I see that there are no upcoming episodes. Also If there are more upcoming episodes, they are part of season 3 not season 4. If you do find a source please add it to season 3 and don't add into season 4. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to List of Mr. Young episodes, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Please provide sources for production codes and upcoming episodes. Also Trivia is not allowed. That's why I removed it. Please talk about the changes first. All this is WP:OR Also if you keep doing this you could be blocked. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of Mr. Young episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also adding content without WP:RS. Also starting an edit war. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Stop reverting the edits. They were taken out for a reason. If you disagree please talk about it on the article talk page. Next time this is reverted you will be reported.everythin g you add must be verifiable. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Phineas and Ferb episodes, Phineas and Ferb (season 1), Phineas and Ferb (season 2), Phineas and Ferb (season 3) and Phineas and Ferb (season 4). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 06:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4) has been underway for

some time with the articles stable for the past week until you made the arbitrary decision to revert. When discussion is underway on the talk page the content shouldn't be changed until consensus is achieved. After your reversions, other editors joined the discussion, all supporting Dcbanner's changes, so your reason for reverting was clearly not as strong as you thought it was. That being the case, when Dcbanners restored the content, you should not have reverted again. To do so is the very essence of edit-warring. That sort of disruptive editing cannot be supported. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for checkuser confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. 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.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continued socking/block evasion. You are obviously editing while logged-out in order to continue your disruptive edits at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4). 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.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• What do you mean "obvious logging out to continue disruption"? I haven't made any edits. user HH (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No reason for block. user HH (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Of course there's a reason: block evasion with WikiEditor2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Chasbo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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? user HH (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm back and I noticed a user left a comment on my talk page saying that I " persisted in engaging in sockpuppetry after your block" even though I have stopped using sockpuppetry. This comment has been removed. The block evasion comment was a mistake. I was reblocked because my original block was too short. user HH (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Another comment about block evasion was on Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4) saying "Because user Hits hits keeps resorting to sockpuppetry and block evasion, all subsequent comments by his socks have been stricken out." I request that this comment be removed. user HH (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for socking and trying to get my way in a discussion. I will not do this again. If I don't get unblocked then can my block at least be shortend user HH (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's pretty obvious these edits are yours, evading the block. That's why this account's block was lengthened. Huon (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Okay, I'm confused. Did you sock or not? You're asking us to remove comments about your socking saying they're not true, but here you are saying in your unblock that you recognize you were blocked for socking and won't sock again. So, did you sock or not? If so, what accounts did you use to make sock edits? only (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I socked with user:WikiEditor2016 and user:Chasbo123 but I didn't evade my block. user HH (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked it up and I guess that this was a WP:Meatpuppet. I told someone about it and why they should be paired user HH (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I got blocked because I socked and created accounts for illegitimate reasons and asked a WP:Meatpuppet to do edits for me. I have asked the WP:Meatpuppet to stop and I will not sock after I get unblocked. user HH (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Before we go any further, I want you to provide a complete list of the meat puppets, and the sock puppets you have created. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Lists

Sockpuppets

• User:Chasbo123
• User:WikiEditor2016

Meatpuppets

• User:155500oo
• 107.72.164.26
• 107.145.98.13
• 107.72.164.81
• 107.72.162.80
• 107.72.162.93

(My meatpuppet would constantly change his IP. I asked him not to)