See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Karaku for more information.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on God‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 01:52, 7 March 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

So I'm getting blocked for others' Ignorance! Oh yeah, that makes alot of sense, and that's so fair!!! .. O WAIT LOL

Decline reason:

The reason you were blocked is groce incivility. You need to learn how to communicate with other editors in a civilised way. If you can't do that, there is not much here for you. — — Edokter • Talk • 01:58, 7 March 2008 (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.

You expect me to be civil when many people decide to be ignorant,a nd TRP decides to stalk me and troll? Is his ass blocked? NO! -Karaku (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karaku. We haven't wiki-met, but I reached this page through WP:AN. Upon reading it, my first instinct was to block you. Once I thought better of that, my second was to issue you a templated no personal attacks warning. Instead, I'm leaving you this message: do you wish to participate in editing Wikipedia while adhering (almost all of the time) to relevant policies and guidelines? If the answer is no, you're going to wind up being indefinitely blocked. That's certainly the road that you're on now. If, however, the answer is yes, would you like me to adopt you? You currently seem frustrated by the various goings-on surrounding articles you create and edit. I would be happy to help you navigate and deal with these goings-on, provided always that you are approaching this exercise in good faith. It is up to you - but you are currently heading down a path that is going to end badly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to God. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the vandalism you did to the aforementioned page was done in a way that appeared to be done specifically to avoid it being detected and reverted, and you have blanked your talk page (which you do indeed have the right to do) in a manner as to make viewing previous warnings and blocks more difficult. I hope you shall choose to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but also bear in mind that editors can view your talk page's history, and that you can't hide your previous infractions by blanking your page. Peter Deer (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While users are entitled to blank their talk pages, it is considered better to archive them, so that they can be more easily referred to by just clicking one link like this. If you need help in archiving your talk page, it is available here. HtD (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee have reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not interpret the wishes of others. Blanking a talk page does not indicate a wish to vanish. Vanishing is done by the following methods:

"Vanishing is the act of disassociating the identity of a user account from the identity of its owner, and typically involves:

• changing the username of the account,[1]
• replacing references to the former username with references to the replacement username,
• deleting the account's user page and subpages, and
• posting a brief note indicating that the account owner has left Wikipedia and asking that people not refer to the account by its former username."

Karaku has done none of those things. HtD (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user's final edit was to blank his Talk page with the edit summary "fuck it." The page blanking was reverted "because of an active block". The block is no longer active, the user has not returned to Wikipedia, and I think it is pretty clear that "fuck it" is the equivalent of "I am retiring from Wikipedia." It seems to me that if someone has expressed quite clearly that they don't want to come back to Wikipedia and that they don't want their sad saga displayed on their Talk page for all eternity, that is within their rights.

Also, I question whether the initial reversion of the page blanking was even according to policy. Show me one policy that says you cannot blank active block messages on your talk page, hmmm?

Look up slightly: "Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked." It's right there on the page! HtD (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:DRC is merely a guideline, there is a distinct lack of Wikipedia policy limiting what kind of content users can remove from their Talk page. I happen to think there should be policy limiting what a person is allowed to remove from their own talk page (e.g. warnings <24 hours old and active block notices) but as it currently stands there is no such policy, at least not that I can find. (If I am wrong, please enlighten me!)

If I have to abide by rules I think are dumb, then so does everybody else. In fact, that is the difference between us and Karaku -- Karaku disagreed with the rules so he chose to aggressively break them and call everyone else ignorant. I disagree with the rules, but I realize they have been formed by community consensus and so I will abide by them as long as they are in place. And by my interpretation of the current rules, Karaku's blanking of the Talk page should never have been reverted.

Furthermore, while I recognize that I was using the word "VANISH" imprecisely, it appears to be a longstanding tradition in Wikipedia that if a user wants to just leave and clear out the ugly history of their wrongdoing, they have the right to do that. Karaku very clearly indicated a desire to do just that (is there really that much difference between putting a banner saying "Retired" at the top of your Talk page vs. blanking the thing with the edit summary "fuck it"?).

Anyway, I'm obviously not going to get in an edit war over a retired user's talk page. I'm just sort of surprised at the insistence to leave all this stuff in place when the user doesn't want it and Wikipedia policy provides no mechanism to override those wishes... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does provide a mechanism. Vanishing is actually something quite different to what you think it is. It is used in cases where, for example, someone has set up an account as JoeBloggs (his real name) and realises later that this might not be such a good idea.

Karaku's options, if he wishes, are to have the account and its edit history deleted (and then create a new user name if he really wants to start fresh), or to put a "retired" tag on his page. He has done neither, and we have to respect that. If he wishes to come back and do any of the above, he can. But we should not interpret what he means by any one contribution (and saying "Fuck it is not the equivalent of saying "I have retired"; look at how many times he has used similar edit summaries in the past), or an extended absence, which he has had before. It is as inappropriate for you to blank his talk page for him as it is for you to blank his User Page for him. HtD (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if Karaku had not previously blanked his talk page and that blanking been reverted. I do not think there is any Wikipedia policy that justifies your initial reversion of the blanking. You said it was because of an active block, but I do not see any Wikipedia policy that says that a User can not erase a notice for an active block on their talk page... If there is, please point me to it! Seriously, because I see users do that now and then, and I would like to restore the block notice but I do not believe I have any right to do so. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to belabour the point but what part of the following is not clear to you?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

So I'm getting blocked for others' Ignorance! Oh yeah, that makes alot of sense, and that's so fair!!! .. O WAIT LOL

Decline reason:

The reason you were blocked is groce incivility. You need to learn how to communicate with other editors in a civilised way. If you can't do that, there is not much here for you. — — Edokter • Talk • 01:58, 7 March 2008 (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.

Note that the blanking wasn't completely undone. All that was returned was the block notice, the unblock notice and the subsequent comments.

Now that the block has expired, if Karaku wants to come back and delete anything he wants, he is free to do so. But it is not up to you to assume that this remains his wish. He has had lengthy absences before during his brief time on Wikipedia. We simply don't know if this is another absence, or if he intends to come back. HtD (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning. You're going to get blocked again. Of this I can assure you. So long as uncivil reverting is all you do, blocks are all you will receive. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me the fuck alone NOW. I have ahd it with you. -Karaku (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know your behavior is unacceptable. Keep it up and you'll be blocked. Simple as that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a shit what you think. I cansee if I can get soem sort of Wiki Restraining Order or some shit on you. -Karaku (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last few blocks accomplished that rather nicely, and that will continue to happen so long as you persist in this uncivil behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, quit blanking whole sections. It's vandalism. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism as that section is NOT NEEDED.

I can see why you're getting frustrated, but you really do need to calm down. =\ A large portion of the Internet allows or even encourages adversarial behavior like swearing and flaming, but on Wikipedia such behavior usually alienates other editors very quickly, as you seem to have experienced. On a collaborative project, it's important to keep a cool head and assume good faith (I'll be leaving The Rogue Penguin a note in a minute). Instead of banging your head against a wall, you may find it easier to copy Code Lyoko into your userspace, perhaps at User:Karaku/Code Lyoko, to work on it there, so that you can work freely while trying to reach an agreement about the article itself. Remember the dispute resolution process is there to help you. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please do mind WP:3RR. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This revert was extremely uncivil. You came to WP:ANI for a resolution, and I encouraged you to work towards discussion. If you're not going to listen to anything, then why bother reporting it to ANI? In any case, continue discussion at ANI. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not uncivil. Your comment was not helping, since you ignored many things I said. -Karaku (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it and not even bothering to answer is incredibly uncivil; hell, removing comments anywhere is uncivil (even removing personal attacks is controversial). Give a reply or simply don't bother. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was unneeded. For fucks sake, READ THE WHOLE COMPLAINT! -Karaku (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to remove messages, it will be construed as vandalism. Give a damn reply as to what I'm missing or don't bother to do anything. I don't want this situation to become any worse, but your actions aren't helping any. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your fucking teacher or parent, it's easy to figure it out if you actually put some effort into finding out.

-Karaku (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to catch more flies with honey. If you can't calm down, it may be time to consider a breather. Your current behavior is only damaging your ability to make a convincing case -- it is very much in your interest to appear as reasonable as possible, if you hope to be listened to. Please try to put your best foot forward. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Luna, being belligerent isn't helping your case. If you are unwilling to act civilly in discussion, then you aren't going to be listened to, and your ANI post will be largely pointless. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said above try making edits in a User subpage for a sandbox before adding it so you have time to find source. If you don't add comments to a page when you edit, it's likely to get shot down. I see you have your own sandbox. That is a good idea: make your edits in the sandbox so you can get all of your sources and THEN be bold in the article! If your edit gets removed, discuss it before reverting it so you don't start an edit war. Thanks for listening! Lyoko is Cool (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The {{inuse}} template will not allow you to do whatever you want. You're blanking several sections and adding unsourced information. Please stop.

— Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm blanking ONE POINTLESS and UNSOURCED Section. I have it in use to add references, and expand the article. YOU are just causing edit conflicts.

-Karaku (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank my warnings if you like. They will still escalate. Understand this well, you're not going to get your way so long as you act like this. The inuse template will not justify your actions. You will only be blocked. If you do not wish for this to happen, stop reverting and try to prove your point with something other than mindless profanity. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hold no position of authority here, so they mean nothing to me. (one of them was for an offence i didnt commit) THE IN USE TEMPLATE MEANS ITS GOING UNDER A HUGE UPDATE, AND YOUR ASS IS ONLY CAUING EDIT CONFLICTS! Knock it the FUCK off. -Karaku (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karaku, you've been advised multiple times to use your user sandbox to create the version of the page you want, and to then copy that to the article all at once, rather than using the inuse template. I don't understand why you are unwilling to do so. The "inuse" tag should be used very sparingly, and definitely not for several hours at a time. Please just use the sandbox, and we won't even have to have this argument. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to, sorry. That's just a pain in the ass, and TRP's wikistalking self will just show up and fuck it up. -Karaku (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to edit your sandbox. Make one, finish your changes instead of disappearing for a week, and maybe then you'll be taken seriously. You're not going to get your way continuing as you are. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust you. And I "dissapeared" for a week when I was blocked and the page was protected with your crappy version. -Karaku (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you don't trust me. I only want this to stop. And you've been gone for far longer than a week, so don't use that excuse. Make a sandbox version, finish your changes, and present it on the talk page. This is about the only way you will dig yourself out of the hole you're in. All the incivility and blocks have eroded your position pretty badly, and you're only making it worse with each response. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand. I am not threatening you, I am not reporting you, I am just making suggestions on how you could avoid these conflicts without any cost to you -- and you just ignore and blank my comments. What do you gain from editing the Code Lyoko 2 article in mainspace with the inuse template, vs. just building the version you want in your sandbox and then copying it over? Just answer that question for me... what does this accomplish?

If you were to do that, and then The Rogue Penguin did a blind revert of your new version without discussing it on the Talk page, then he'd be the one at fault. But the way you are playing this, you are coming off as the villain. I am trying to help you, to show you how if you just modify your actions a little tiny bit, you could be the "good guy" and the editors who disagree with you would be the ones getting week-long blocks.

On the other hand, if you continue to ignore me and all the other editors who have tried to give you constructive advice, I can predict quite confidently that someone will block your ass yet again, and this time it will be longer than a week. It's your call, dude... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting annoying warnings is doing nothing to solve the problem. -Karaku (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's what The Rogue Penguin is doing. I am not posting warnings, I am posting critical information about how you can increase your leverage. The thing about Wikipedia, and about life in general, is that sometimes it doesn't matter if you are right; it matters whether you follow the correct processes. Right now, like it or not, the processes you are using will not be effective, and you will end up getting blocked. (I am not threatening you, I am telling you the truth... just like if I said, "If you don't wear your seatbelt, you could be killed," doesn't mean I am threatening to kill you, lol) I am trying to help you understand how you can get what you want by using processes that will be effective on Wikipedia. But I guess you aren't interested... Ah well. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I am too late. Well, see you in April, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karaku, edit summaries like [this one] and many of your comments above are personal attacks and deeply uncivil. Please restrain your language. No matter what the perceived provocation, this kind of response is not appropriate and if you continue, you could be blocked from editing. Thanks, Gwernol 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Code Lyoko. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent edit warring, gross incivility and personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 20:54, 20 March 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

If you actually looked, you could see I apologized for my "incivil" actions. The Edit war is because TRP is ignorant with templates. Unblock me.

Decline reason:

That you were edit-warring is clear, and edit-warring is against the rules even when you are certain that you are right. That you have an ongoing problem speaking politely to users with whom you disagree appears also to be supported by your edit history and block log. You were grossly uncivil in this edit summary, four minutes before you made this unblock request, and I did not see any apology between that edit and this one. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, users who are not able to work cooperatively are harmful to the project, and so, since short warnings and blocks have not been effective, it seems best for the encyclopedia if you are blocked for a longer period of time. If you continue in this way, an indefinite block is certainly in your future.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 March 2008 (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.

Karaku, please note that continued incivility and vandalism from you will result in this page being protected to prevent you from editing it during your block. Gwernol 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Karaku for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 15:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Im promo cl.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CodeLyoko logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]