User talk:THC Loadee

Welcome[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! E8 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA edits[edit]

Please stop making edits in violation of WP:ERA. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flavr Savr[edit]

Please see Talk:Flavr_Savr#I-SIS and discuss the content you have added rather than edit warring. Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion was started at the talk page about inserting this information previously. You should join the discussion and obtain consensus before re-inserting it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pusztai paper[edit]

Hi THC Loadee, the paper you added is not a reliable source for the information you were citing, we have a whole article on the paper, which you may want to read: Pusztai affair. It should explain why it isn't suitable as a reference. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, the citation was from a highly respected journal. I am confused. Please explain. THC Loadee 16:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but I may be able to help. Your edit added this Genetically modified (GM) crops and food are being grown and consumed by the public, even though there is little scientific study about their health risks, the FDA's safety test technology is inadequate to assess potential harm, they can carry unpredictable toxins and they may increase the risk of allergenic reactions to the article and you used the Lancet paper to justify it. I have read that paper and it does not mention the FDA safety tests or unpredictable toxins and has nothing to do with tomatoes. It appears to be copied from this. If you read the original paper you will see you can not use it to justify that sentence. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. I made an error. Thank you for taking the time to explain. THC Loadee 10:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fish farming[edit]

The addition you made to Fish farming was seriously misleading. Your citation, aside from being very dated and unreliable, did not apply in any way to current or historic fish farming practices, whereas the context you placed it in made it appear that it did. Please consider this a warning, and desist contributing to Wikipedia if you intend to continue adding misleading information. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, Epipelagic. --THC Loadee 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Duct tape[edit]

There must be a published source for your addition to the duct tape article, the one that relies on a bunch of interviews of Vietnam-era American soldiers. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange[edit]

hello, THC Loadee. i would urge you to take any potentially contentious edits to the Julian Assange article to the talk page of the article prior to making them. it's a controversial article, with several editors of differing points of view, and the issue of mentioning the names of the accusers is something that has been discussed over there many times, resulting in deadlock. as a result, a request for comment has been opened regarding this issue. i can say with a fair degree of certainty that any edits along these lines will be reverted unless you're willing to discuss them first. Kaini (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, I'd recommend you look at WP:3RR - you may already have contravened this, and edit-warring without attempting to discuss a contentious issue could result in your account being blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the dialogue, however, I can't agree with either of you. I removed the alleged victims name from my entry, but I think that is completely ridiculous because her name is been published numerous times all over the world. So why are we hiding it now? I don't see the point. As far as Assange being the founder, I don't think that this topic has been clarified. The Wikileaks website does not identify Assange as the founder. It says various people from around the world founded Wikileaks. I have read the discussion and I don't think any of it addresses my concern. THC Loadee (talk) 02:08, 2 MARCH 2011 (UTC)

the victim's names are not mentioned until a consensus has been reached one way or the other as per WP:BLP - see John Siegenthaler for an example of what can go wrong if BLP isn't adhered to; it is better to err on the side of caution. the fact that the names are out there to be found is irrelevant; it still potentially contravenes wiki policy. and the sources you have provided are not reliable, anyway. as for the issue of Assange being the founder, I've provided a WP:RS reference that he is; there are many others out there - even a simple google search reveals the wealth of sources supporting this. i'd encourage you to have a look at the archived talk on the Assange page if you haven't already done so. finally, every other editor of the article is willing to engage in dialogue on the talk page prior to making contentious edits; you should be willing to do so as well. Kaini (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i was referring to this edit; the article moves fast, i don't see it in the present revision. really, this is a minor issue for me, and i'm not too bothered by the semantics of how we put it in the article. however, the allegations of CIA connections and the issue of naming the accusers are emphatically not minor issues. Kaini (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i mean no offence by this, but this isn't something you should be discussing with just me. if you have an issue with the article content, you should take it up on the article's talk page. there are many editors involved in editing the Assange article on a regular basis (some to a much greater degree than my involvement with the article) so if there are things you'd like to see changed, that's the place to try and establish a consensus. we all just want for the article to be as good as it can be; it's not wikipedia's place to pass judgement one way or the other, but to present the facts. Kaini (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glass–Steagall Act[edit]

I'm not sure what's going on with the editing of Glass–Steagall Act, but please use the edit summary to explain your deletions of sourced material. I'm undoing your last edit since there doesn't appear to be any reason for it. Will Beback talk 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Glass–Steagall Act#Impact on 2007-2011 financial crisis. Will Beback talk 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore "Savings and Loan" to the article? There are no savings and loans anymore and the crisis was with banks, not "savings and loan banks". This is incorrect information and should be removed. Cbowen4 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Your addition to KPFK has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. – Wdchk (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for vandalism and personal attacks. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mifter (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

To quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." My entry was added to counter-balance the claim that Christianity prevents violence made by Mike Huckabee in the article 'Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.' I added a multiple sourced reference to Christianity's long history with violence in order to show the reader that Huckabee's statement was less than true. THC Loadee 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the "personal attack" part of the block reason - see below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2013 (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.

Wow, you only got 3 days block for this disgusting attack? Civility is a pillar of behaviour on Wikipedia, not an option (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of you can SUCK IT!

Suck what? A lollipop? What flavor? NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 18:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Coconut oil, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come when I find unsourced entries and remove them, I get chastised? Yet

you removed my unsourced entry and all is well? THC Loadee 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to what you say is your being chastised for removal of unsourced content. However, I can explain that I reverted your edit because it directly contradicted information in the article from relevant sources without citing a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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) 22:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Conduct[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Please stop referring to other editors as religious zealots or other derogatory terms, we are all aiming to build an encyclopedia, and attacking other editors personally helps no one. Thank you, Mifter (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have pointed you to the WP:MEDRS policy, please respect that and avoid edit warring. Further violation will result in a routine block of your account. Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now everyone is telling me that medium-chain fatty acids don't exist and that long-chain fatty acids are the only ones that do and that they're "bad." Please stop the fascistic enforcement of "group think" shoved down the throat by the thought police here at Wikipedia. THC Loadee 19:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is engaging in "fascistic enforcement of 'group think'" to shove down your throat. Other editors are merely unconvinced by your edits and your sources, AND more importantly, want you to refrain from edit-warring and attacking other editors for disagreeing with you.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if other editors really wanted to do a "fascistic enforcement," you would have been made to disappear in the night after a knock on your door.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my sources to conform with WP:MEDRS, yet I'm still being harassed. So whatever the rest of you are saying, it reeks of hypocrisy. THC Loadee 01:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting your edit-warring or warning you for being uncivil are not "harassment"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It started with harassment and the edit-warring is ongoing. THC Loadee 02:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It started with you demeaning others based on their beliefs. AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it started with someone adding religious bias to an article. I counter-balanced that religious bias with historic fact. Then, my edit was removed based on more religious bias. You can fantasize about what you think happened, but the facts are undeniable. Once again, there is a wiki for religious folk. It's called Conservapedia. Try it. You might like it better than Wikipedia. On Conservapedia, they don't like facts very much. THC Loadee 02:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This started with you adding an extremely POV edit here. You have made it clear that you have anti-religious agenda. AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Are you telling me that Christianity is not steeped in centuries of violent behavior? Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? A claim was made that Christianity was a non-violent religion. That claim was patently false. Did I remove the claim like "editors" remove my sourced edits? No. I added another point of view contrary to the claim. I gave historical sources. But guess what? My edit was removed anyway and the religiously biased claim was left alone. How can you call this type of behavior even-handed or fair or democratic? Hypocrisy. THC Loadee 03:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your blatantly anti-Christian edit was completely irrelevant to the Sandy Hook article. You are editing with an anti-Christian POV, as demonstrated by your attack on me after I reverted your edit. Furthermore, as a Baptist, I am well aware of the Spanish Inquisition and do not care to be thrown into the same group as those who perpetrated such a sad fiasco. AutomaticStrikeout ? 03:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "harassing" you, THC Loadee. You are the one accusing people of being fascists for not automatically agreeing with you. People are reverting your edits, and warning you for your edit-warring: those actions are not "harassment" or "fascism"--Mr Fink (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read my responses. I was harassed and my contribution was erased. All of this happened within the context of my historically factual edit being removed to support religious bias in the article. That is vandalism and it's turned into harassment.THC Loadee 02:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You were adding bias, not removing it. You have an agenda here and it is quite clear. AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that Christianity is not a violent religion? You have the bias. I am attempting to add a counter-point. I did not erase such a blatantly false claim, instead, I added an opposing viewpoint. What is my "agenda," pray tell? Religious beliefs are a personal matter. Are you concerned that someone might read the article and think that Christianity is historically violent? Well, it's true. Why do you censor that which you don't like or believe in? Why are you afraid to hear opposing arguments that are counter to your belief system? Why do you censor? Is it because religious beliefs are opinions and can't stand up to the light of facts? I have no problem with ideas that I don't agree with. I don't censor those ideas, I argue against them with facts.THC Loadee 03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Human beings in general are violent. Also, just because something is supported by a source does not make it acceptable. We are very much concerned with neutrality here. AutomaticStrikeout ? 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're concerned with pushing your misguided religious views to the detriment of other opinions. You let religious edits remain untouched while opposing edits are removed and the editors harassed. You are a hypocrite. BTW, to those of you who now like to follow me around on Wikipedia to make sure I'm being a good little editor. Fuck all of you. I will return again and again, in a myriad of forms, but never again as THC Loadee. That ID is dead. How many possible IP addresses are there? Wikipedia is about to find out.

May 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Materialscientist, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Mr Fink (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." I was told to improve my sources to conform with WP:MEDRS. I did. Stop harassing me. THC Loadee 02:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. You are defying the other editors on the talk page. It is odd how you insist that everyone else here is wrong and you are right. AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the hell are you talking about? I am "defying others." Who do you or the rest of the "editors" think they are that allows them to be judge, jury and executioner. I have never claimed to be "right," rather, I have added to the articles in order to give a more balanced perspective. It doesn't matter though, my edits are removed without due consideration or diligence. I am merely adding to the broader understanding of certain topics such as the Sandy Hook article or the coconut oil article. I have sourced my edits, as per Wiki guidelines. Yet my contribution are erased. I used the word fascist to describe my experiences with other "editors," but now I realize I was wrong. The correct word is authoritarian. THC Loadee 02:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I'm talking about: You keep on reverting to what you want even when nobody agrees with you. Even if we aren't judge, jury and executioner, are you? AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:THC Loadee. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout ? 03:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 below this notice 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. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your edit war at Coconut oil, there's ridiculous and highly inappropriate edits like this one (and your explanation for it, given above, is specious). And in addition to that, there's the battleground mentality you are displaying throughout. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it absolutely thrilling that my words are taken out of context. Also, there are five different adults using the same Internet connection. To call this affair Sockpuppetry is ludicrous. Unless, of course, the wise and eminent Wiki editors are telepathic. I have a dynamic IP from my ISP. THC Loadee 04:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If your words are being taken out of contest at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, feel free to explain the context there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the ban and I will.THC Loadee 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If your words are being taken out of contest at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, feel free to explain the context here and I'll make sure it is quoted completely there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Uncletomwood (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a little late, pal. -THC Loadee 04:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee, this edit at Coconut oil reverting back the exact same content that got you blocked for edit-warring in the first place was a terrible idea. If you revert it back again, it'll go straight back to the 3RR discussion board and will almost certainly result in another, longer block. Your proposed content change at the article may have some merit in it, but the way you're going about it isn't working. Your editing history hasn't demonstrated that you're interested in working within Wikipedia's behavior and content policies, but if you are: Please bring high-quality sources, summarize them accurately, and discuss the content (and not editors) and gain consensus at the article Talk page. Thanks... Zad68 15:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zad68. Make your case on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely ignored on the talk page. All I get is hypocrisy veiled in Wikipedia procedural arguments. So, your point is moot. ---THC Loadee 01:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You get ignored on the talkpages because you do nothing but pound your chest and whine mightily about how the other editors are so evil for not automatically kowtowing to you, like you just did right now. Perhaps if you actually tried discussing things, rather than continue with your edit wars and inane accusations...--Mr Fink (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is the problem of how you hypocritically ignore all attempts at discussion beyond hurling hypocritical accusations.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue. I have asked several questions on the talk page. All of which have been ignored. Others have asked similar questions. They were also ignored. Additionally, pertinent content has been removed concerning refined, hydrogenated and extra virgin forms of the oil. It seems to me that someone, or a group of someones, has an agenda, or at the very least ignorance is reigning supreme. Since profits are a concern, I tend to think there are editors who have a finacial motive to keep misinformation alive on this page. It is a known fact that Wiki articles have been edited by those with financial motives.----THC Loadee 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#THC_Loadee.2C_again regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was indefinitely blocked.[1] - SummerPhD (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clearly not being here to edit constructively.. 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. Ironholds (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/THC Loadee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK REQUEST[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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting my account be unblocked. I made some very serious and obnoxious edits several years ago. I would like make useful and valid edit from now on. I understand that my behavior was unacceptable. I understand that my edits were detrimental to the stated purpose of Wikipedia and I pledge to use my account for meaningful edits, henceforth. I now fully understand the implications of my edits and would like to apologize to those with whom I insulted. It's been almost four years since my last edit. I would like to contribute again in a constructive manner. Also, apparently a roommate of mine, who no longer resides here, was also active on my account. I take full responsibility for my edits and for my roomates edits. I didn't fully secure my account and should my account be reinstated, I will change my password and not allow anyone to access my account surreptitiously. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

We don't unblock compromised accounts. What is your relationship to User:8675309 and User:G8675309? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:34, 15 March 2017 (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.

How can I prove that I have full control of my account? I have no relationship to User:8675309 and User:G8675309.THC Loadee 05:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK REQUEST[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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting my account be unblocked. I made some very serious and obnoxious edits several years ago. I would like to make useful and valid edits. I understand that my behavior was unacceptable. I understand that my edits were detrimental to the stated purpose of Wikipedia and I pledge to use my account for meaningful edits, henceforth. I understand the implications of my edits and would like to apologize to those with whom I insulted. I would like to contribute again in a constructive manner. My password has been changed and no one except me has access.

Decline reason:

I am afraid that unless you have a committed identity, we have no way of knowing whether you are the original owner of this account or not. As such, we cannot unblock this account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:13, 24 October 2017 (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.

UNBLOCK REQUEST[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).

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

Request reason:

If Wikipedia refuses to unblock my account, how can I get credit for my contributions? I put a lot of time and effort into my edits (even the bad ones) and I would like credit for that time and effort. Can I move them over to another account or a new account? Can this profile be unlocked at some future date? THC Loadee 09:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. You have to address the reason for your block, if you wish to be considered for an unblock. As to your questions, though. You can't contribute anything more until this account is unblocked. Your existing contributions are already credited to this account. You can not set up another account while this one is blocked. That would be a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. Yamla (talk) 11:53, 7 February 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.