User talk:Aceferno
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Aceferno! I am Calaka and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Calaka (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 | Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. |
Aceferno (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What makes you 100% I'm this Jacob Peters guy.
Decline reason:
Your comments below makes us sure you are "this Jacob Peters guy". Tiptoety talk 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
Aceferno (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What did this Jacob Peters do that he even deserves a ban? Are you going to ban anyone that tries to show the leftist point of view simply because you have reason to believe they are a "sock puppet" of Jacob Peters? I doubt anyone would stick 2 god dam years battling hopeless idiots like you who have no sympathy for the want of knowledge and want to keep their anti-communist articles untouched. You probably just have mistaken anyone who has tried to neutrally show the other side of history as Jacob Peters and banned them. Your troubles are your own creations of ignorance and stupidity.
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Your second anniversary
[edit]I'm sorry I missed yours second anniversary: more than two years of creating sockpuppet accounts to try to push your point of view into Wikipedia. During that two years, you've learned a few things. You've learned Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, of course, and how frustrating it can be when ideas that seem so clear and true to you aren't the same ideas that other people have. You've also learned that Wikipedia has many, many users, and they all use the same set of rules- even if one user doesn't notice you breaking the rules, someone else will. And you've learned that every time you create a new account and try again, your edits are removed, your new account is blocked, and you have accomplished nothing. After two years and many, many accounts, the article is still more or less the same as it was. Now you have a decision to make. What will you do? You can continue for the rest of your life, making accounts and having them blocked. But the rules will stay the same, and it's very easy to block you and remove your edits- just two clicks of a mouse. At the end, you may discover you've wasted enormous amounts of time and achieved nothing. Feel free, if you like, to continue, if that's how you want to spend your life. Or accept that you aren't going to achieve this goal, and move on to other, better goals. Have a family, learn to bake bread, write a novel, take up soccer- there are so many more fun ways to spend your life than this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I laugh at you. Keep ignoring any justification I try to give of any edits and just relate me to some one else and use that as a reason to ban me. You are quite ignorant. Just like how you ignored any reasoning I gave, I am going to ignore your paragraph of shit.
- Planning to keep going for another two years, then? That's fine; you're one of many people in the same position. You make your edits, we'll revert them and block you again, and in the end, you'll have accomplished nothing. It doesn't take that much work on our part, and there are many thousands of people doing that work, so it really isn't that much of an inconvenience to us; the time that's being wasted is yours, not ours. Eventually you'll give up and stop. Or, eventually, you'll die of old age, and stop. No big deal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, I am not Jacob Peters and I find it rather funny that the reference is made. I admit I am Yakooza2, but have no idea who Peters is. And second, I have accomplished much. I now hold the knowledge of the ignorant, lying, and hypocrites that run Wikipedia. If you insist on keeping your biased articles that violate every one of reasons you have used to revert my changes. As I have already pointed them out and they have been completely ignored, then you truly are scumbags or ignorant as hell. If you fail to argue, or even worse, ignore completely my arguments and justifications, and listen to reason, then you truly are authoritarian douchebags. If you had taken a time to listen to my arguments, then could I possible be of understanding to your criticisms of my edits. At first, I truly listened to any reason that my edits were turned out. I tried to better my writing style to fit that of which Wikipedia's policy accepts. But after I had believed I had done this, my changed were being undone un-justifiably. I had someone tell me that I should use the talk pages to discuss my edits. I tried. I posted paragraphs of the evidence of the bias already contained and I discussed why my changes were justifiable. They were either ignored or by replied to with stupidity. I had someone tell me that my sources were false and useless because they were pro-Stalin. I had used sources from professors and notable historians which deserved their books as a source. I pointed what a hypocritical move this was, and how the sources already contained were not reliable and how POV was being asserted in every sentence of the article. It was ignored and I was banned on the suspicion of being Jacob Peters. This is the last attempt I make of trying to explain myself. Aceferno (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- thats right, ignore me once again.
- Yes, that's correct. We've explained the rules. We've blocked you over and over. You don't seem to understand the rules, so we'd be wasting our time explaining the same rules over and over. Instead, we ignore you, simply reverting your edits and blocking you when you appear again. We'll continue doing this until you quit, or die of old age. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- thats right, ignore me once again.
- First of all, I am not Jacob Peters and I find it rather funny that the reference is made. I admit I am Yakooza2, but have no idea who Peters is. And second, I have accomplished much. I now hold the knowledge of the ignorant, lying, and hypocrites that run Wikipedia. If you insist on keeping your biased articles that violate every one of reasons you have used to revert my changes. As I have already pointed them out and they have been completely ignored, then you truly are scumbags or ignorant as hell. If you fail to argue, or even worse, ignore completely my arguments and justifications, and listen to reason, then you truly are authoritarian douchebags. If you had taken a time to listen to my arguments, then could I possible be of understanding to your criticisms of my edits. At first, I truly listened to any reason that my edits were turned out. I tried to better my writing style to fit that of which Wikipedia's policy accepts. But after I had believed I had done this, my changed were being undone un-justifiably. I had someone tell me that I should use the talk pages to discuss my edits. I tried. I posted paragraphs of the evidence of the bias already contained and I discussed why my changes were justifiable. They were either ignored or by replied to with stupidity. I had someone tell me that my sources were false and useless because they were pro-Stalin. I had used sources from professors and notable historians which deserved their books as a source. I pointed what a hypocritical move this was, and how the sources already contained were not reliable and how POV was being asserted in every sentence of the article. It was ignored and I was banned on the suspicion of being Jacob Peters. This is the last attempt I make of trying to explain myself. Aceferno (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Planning to keep going for another two years, then? That's fine; you're one of many people in the same position. You make your edits, we'll revert them and block you again, and in the end, you'll have accomplished nothing. It doesn't take that much work on our part, and there are many thousands of people doing that work, so it really isn't that much of an inconvenience to us; the time that's being wasted is yours, not ours. Eventually you'll give up and stop. Or, eventually, you'll die of old age, and stop. No big deal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)