You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges[1]. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I asked for a time out, so that I spend less time on the Internet. Did not think I had done any incivility (yet). Of course, you could be doing me a favor by perma-banning me...

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock. Kuru ^talk 23:22, 12 May 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't understand the block reason. If it was to help me lose weight I applaud you. If it was for incivility, I don't think I did that yet. Capisce?

Decline reason:

The diff which resulted in your indef block was included in the block reason. No valid unblock reason given. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:09, 13 May 2009 (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.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --B (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request to be unbanned. See ANI "New start" for details.TCO (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well from what I've read you were never banned only indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks). That being the case, I suggest you read the message at the top which instructs you how to request to be unblocked (you've tried it before). Note it directs you to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks which you should read and says amongst other things, you should demonstrate an understanding of why you were blocked previously and undertake not to repeat that behaviour again. I would note that continuing to engage in sockpuppetry or otherwise editing anywhere other then your talkpage while you are blocked is not likely to be seen particularly positively. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked user:72.82.33.250 as an apparent sock of TCO.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 22 November 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and will not do it again. I request a non-involved admin review this case.

Decline reason:

I am uninvolved. You have shown no understanding of why you were blocked. In fact, you have done nothing but question it. As such, how can you say you will never do it again? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:42, 26 November 2010 (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.

Was trying to avoid ANI, since there can be a lot of drama and contention at these things. And I didn't want myself to be batted around as the subject of public debate. But I guess, I want to appeal to the community. I will abide by their call.

I just want to get unblocked and edit again and write content. It's kinda fun to write on Wiki since the interface is so cool and it gets on the web immediately. And there are some areas where I know some decent stuff, content-wise. And I'm not Tony1, but I'm an asset as a writer, here.

1. I recognize that I was uncivil (in general have not tried to deny this...I just did it anyway).

2. I promise not to do it any more. Note, I never said that before and it's a big deal (to me) to say that, since now I've made a commitment, versus before when I was just defiant.

3. My plan in future is to contribute content, avoid one article where I most clashed, and avoid editors/admins whom I clashed with previously.

4. Bwilkins is not uninvolved. We have clashed before. Nov 2008.

TCO (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You used an IP to edit for several days before filing this request. Have you used any other IPs or socks since your block?   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response below. (Will you start the ANI please?) TCO (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we hold off on the ANI for a while longer? I've looked into this a bit, and I might be willing to unblock without the hassle of an ANI thread. I'd like to look into it a little more. If I decide I don't want to do it on my own, I'll open the ANI thread for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thanks for the time spent, regardless of outcome. TCO (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm willing to unblock, based on the understanding above that you won't resume some of the behavior that lead to the previous blocks. The only remaining hoop to jump through is to see if Toddst1 has some reason that isn't readily apparent to me that unblocking would be stupid. If he's OK with it, I'll unblock. If he's not, I'll start an ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed (incivility). Thanks for the time spent.TCO (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Toddst1 doesn't edit very often right now, and it could be days or a week until he logs back on. I'm going to unblock, based on the assumption that there wasn't more to this than meets the eye back then. Contingent on your assurances above. Please edit the sandbox as soon as possible so I'm sure I've cleared any autoblocks. Welcome back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sandbox edit tested and worked. Appreciate the attention, especially given your semi-retirement. TCO (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. "Yes." Here are the details (not trying to make excuses or be defiant, just describing):

1. I didn't edit at all for several months, just honored the May09 perma-ban. I usually try to honor perma-bans (or temporary ones) from forums I get kicked out of. I figure the moderators need to do their job and my bannings are justified.

2. I've never created an alternate account.

3. Then I think I IP-edited a few days, a couple months ago, with whatever IP just came off of my computer and ISP. I was associated with creation of the RVC Bodley and Gertrude Friedberg and Alexandra Raisman pages. Maybe a handful of other edits at other pages I can't recall.

4. I didn't really see it as sneaking around, but yeah...that was not honoring the ban, no argument. Kinda let slip that I was a previous editor (I'm a miserable sock, am way too candid). Was told by other editors not to post any more. Honored that...for a little while.

5. Don't come down on the people who opened new pages for me to create content. I just asked as an IP (normal process, since IPs can't make new pages). It's not like they were thick with me.

6. Started editing Shawn Johnson, a few days ago. (With the 7xx...IP you blocked. Also one other one starting with a 9xx.. No intentional change of the IP, it just did that for some reason when I was at different spots even though computer was the same.)

7. An off-hand remark from Charles Matthews implying that one could come back from exile ("but stop socking, that is not the way to come back") kind of knocked around in the back of my head. Made me think, maybe the perma-ban was appealable. (Plus I lost the 70 pounds and got really strong in shape, and stopped drinking, so my need for Internet break I asked for from ProtonK had been satisfied.) Plus Intelati was recommending I get an account instead of IP-editing (he did not know the history, thought I was a new contributor.)

8. So I reached out to find out how to come back if possible. Intelati put in an ANI (now archived). I stopped IP editing at that time. (Prior to your blocking of the IP.) I was advised to put in an unblock request, using th template and after readin the unblock instructions (which I did). That brings us here.

9. P.s. If my block appeal by community is not granted, then we should RTV the account. (Not being "take my ball and go home", just common sense.) And yeah, I read the policy and know RTV doesn't allow me to come back under sanction. Just if I'm forever banned, and already asked community to come back, let's clean this account up and each go our own way.

TCO (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, dive right in! You might want to start someplace like WP:GAN If you read the reviews at WP:FAC, they can get rather technical about the Manual of Style (MOS) so that might not be a good place to start. By the way, I think the newer the FA (check the promotion date in article history on the article talk page) the better the writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which comment are you replying to? Was all over the place last night. Knowing what I said, will help me put your remark in context. TCO (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this one. -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasn't sure if he was encouraging me to copyedit passed articles, or copyedit in general, or join a "group", or do some peer reviewing. I r slow.  :) TCO (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Amanar. Give me some feedback and upgrades (to help become a power user)!TCO (talk)

Why not start an archive for your talk page? People are going to get entirely the wrong idea when they come here and see all the blocks.

What are you interested in writing about?

1. I don't like archives and if anything want to go in the opposite direction and pull a lot of old content out, that was wiped while I was banned. Will have to collate it with new stuff. And a couple bad remarks of mine were rightfully deleted, so have to not bring those back. I'd rather keep the bans and such, but have them in chronological order rather than as a page header. It's a bit of a project and low priority, but I agree looks pretty bad, right now!

2. Mostly interested in gymnastics right now. Could change quickly though. That project seems dead.

TCO (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are overrated, I avoid them. Just learn to do your own thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TCO. You have new messages at The Utahraptor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for picking up the copy-edit...I thought nobody would come! XD NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]