User talk:Accurate194534

Welcome!

Hello, Accurate194534, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Three Chimneys (Genesee Depot, Wisconsin), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2016 (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).

Accurate194534 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Editor has given no reason to unblock

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock; I note WP:NOTTHEM comments lower on this page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:54, 21 September 2016 (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.

Guilty until proven innocent? What is this? I am a frequent wiki reader and I saw one article that did not meet notability. The name of this individual popped into my head, for he made very specific posts, specifically ones regarding amusement rides, in fact, the article on Windseeker has been edited by both the sock puppeteer and his sock puppet. The same sort of disruptive edits and frequent deletion requests have been shown. The user "Marvellous Spider-Man" was created almost immediately after he was banned in the last of nearly a dozen sock puppetry bans for said individual. Additionally, he added a frivolous category to the Barbary Slave Trade article, saying the it was "racism against whites." The user has no business being involved in this encyclopedia. My mission with these few edits was to help create a better encyclopedia here. That's all. Accurate194534 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Additionally, just go to the individual's oldest posts in contributions. They are practically identical to the ones that Starship9000 and his sock puppets have continually edited. The latest contributions are all his typical AFD targets. Who knows how much damage he has done with his many PRODs, AFDs, and Speedy Deletions, almost exclusively being against people of eastern descent.

Returning User

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).

Accurate194534 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not edited in years and completely lost old login info. Please reinstate

Decline reason:

I don't believe that you forgot your username. You certainly remember pages that you edited, so you can find it in the page history. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2016 (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.

What is your old account name? It also looks like DeltaQuad blocked you because you appeared to be a sockpuppet, so that's also a concern here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's rather concerning that you accused another Wikipedia editor of sockpuppetry in two different locations without any evidence to back up your claims, which makes it appear like you were doing it because he PRODed Three Chimneys (Genesee Depot, Wisconsin). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the reason. I made it because I saw an article that was not notable CelebrityNetWorth. I couldn't remember my old login. I have not used it in many years, and have a different email so there was no way to retrieve it. I accused this certain individual of sockpuppeting because I remembered his comments on very specific things, amusement parks, racist tirades against people of asian and middle eastern descent, and him placing PROD on any articles that he does not know anything about. I removed the PROD because the house was built by a notable architect. It's been a while since I have been on here, but I wanted to come back and make a difference. I would have used the same username if I remembered it. It has been years. Accurate194534 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot accuse other users of sockpuppetry without some sort of evidence. Can you point to specific edits that this user made that resembled the sockpuppeteer? Just on a quick glance I don't see anything that would really tie the two together, especially as the most recent accounts created by Starship9000 had ridiculous names and were extremely disruptive. I also have to echo Vanjagenije's concern that you can remember seeing this person on specific pages, but cannot remember the username. Your best bet here is to go to the articles and topics and look for your username, then come back and post it here with an unblock request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty until proven innocent? What is this? I am a frequent wiki reader and I saw one article that did not meet notability. The name of this individual popped into my head, for he made very specific posts, specifically ones regarding amusement rides, in fact, the article on Windseeker has been edited by both the sock puppeteer and his sock puppet. The same sort of disruptive edits and frequent deletion requests have been shown. The user "Marvellous Spider-Man" was created almost immediately after he was banned in the last of nearly a dozen sock puppetry bans for said individual. Additionally, he added a frivolous category to the Barbary Slave Trade article, saying the it was "racism against whites." The user has no business being involved in this encyclopedia. My mission with these few edits was to help create a better encyclopedia here. That's all. Accurate194534 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, just go to the individual's oldest posts in contributions. They are practically identical to the ones that Starship9000 and his sock puppets have continually edited. The latest contributions are all his typical AFD targets. Who knows how much damage he has done with his many PRODs, AFDs, and Speedy Deletions, almost exclusively being against people of eastern descent.

September 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]