User talk:Chase Segasi

Welcome![edit]

Hello Chase Segasi, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. On some points for semi-protected page articles what does that mean like for 4 days and 10 edits, does it mean you need to have 10 edits a day for 4 days? Just wondering. Thanks! Chase Segasi (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected pages can only be edited by people who are "wp:autoconfirmed". Once your account is 4 days old, and you have 10 edits (not on the same day), you will be able to edit semi-protected pages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya i'm sorry i accidentally added a wrong informnation regarding that 26 civilians have been killed by the British. Hope you get my answer. It was accidentally a mistake. Do i need to go into your profile in order to approve whether to put it or not. Sorry but i'm not one of paulioetc. He's been abusing lot of accounts

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here Chase Segasi (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked by a checkuser for sockpuppetry, and have wholly failed to address this in your request. Giving an appearance of wiki-ignorance convinces nobody.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:27, 24 March 2011 (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.

Fine i understand i was blocked for because i accindetally added a wrong infor. Geez i don't know what the admins are up too lately cause i heard they been blocking accounts just because they mistakenly edited the wrong info but one wrong doesn't make convince why i was blocked indefinite for no reason. but what give you the position to put with this guy name paulioetc account? fine i think i didn't read too many accounts or the rules yet. I was vety new to this and i haven't edited a long time. I didn't know that admnis now were very tough on these situations compare too. Give the fact, i'm sorta abused it a lot. So I don't know Paulioetc what was he blocked for anyways. So fine, if i go to a wiki admistration pages and show them if i added or not, they would show and approve it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/7909740/Afghan-war-logs-British-troops-killed-dozens-of-civilians.html Sorry i misread this as 26 civiliand were killed but there were list of 26 civiliand killed on the bottom link. I did not see that coming.

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).

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

Request reason:

No reason given

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of blocked user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:44, 24 March 2011 (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.

ok i see it using the same pattern, same editing as paulioetc??? Ok that doesn't make any sense. I don't know who's that guy is but what wrong info did i add wrong that concerns that i was one of them?

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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

If we see similar behavior we are within our rights to block you on that basis. And we do not generally disclose the specifics of said behavior with suspected sock puppets as that would better help them elude detection (sort of like giving your house keys to an unsuccessful burglar). — Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (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.