User talk:Artistseries
Copy-paste creations
[edit]Please refrain from creating new articles using content copy-pasted from drafts; this disrupts the WP:AFC process, and does not transfer the effected draft's edit history. The later point should be respected as editors deserve attribution. You may want to take a look at WP:MOVE, and note that continued copy-paste moves may be considered disruptive editing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joedirosa. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
Artistseries (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason hereThere is no evidence of sockpupetry until I was targeted by this group of editors. They are making baseless claims against my editing.. There is no way that the articles they denied are less relevant than the numerous pages Theroadislong ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong ) has made for wikipedia. There is just no way. Lets face it this has no chance of being unblocked because the admin who blocked me has blocked over 27,000 accounts and only unblocked 169 which should tell you these guys get off on causing problems more than paying attention to the over 4,000 articles which are waiting to be reviewed that are over 2 months old.
Decline reason:
None of this is relevant. WP:GAB helps you understand how to craft an unblock request. There's evidence now, and that's what you need to address. Indeed, there's technical confirmation. Yamla (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2018 (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.
Artistseries (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yamla - There is definitely no evidence before 8 days ago because there was none. THe last time i used this account was 2009.. I forgot i even had one so i created a new one 10 years later and i didnt even remember that i had the account from 10 years ago.. Its not like it was active or suspended when they found it.. You know these editors can bend anything the way they want.. Which is ok but you are saying that the articles I wrote are not relevant.. Your talking a VS model, a billion dollar insurance company that employs 3,000 people for over 100 years and has 16 million customers, and the company that got a patent for the modern day treatment to fight athletes foot.
Mine were better sourced and more relevant than half the articles on this page.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong .. and first and most important Sockpuppetting is not against the TOS, how can you block someone who wasn't doing anything but trying to avoid being targeted because he used his own name as a screen name without thinking? Or created an account after he forgot he had one from 10 years ago. It says that you need to be intentionally causing harm to the wiki community to be blocked.. Where do you see that happening? Were have I intentionally caused disruption or harm? I wasn't even given a warning before being blocked.. I'm just trying to stop these people from making baseless standard comments they know people wont check up on..
If you are looking for an admission of guilt then I will provide you with one. Yes I created a new account having forgot about the old one from 2009 I had. In an attempt to stop the harassment I experienced from arguing with an editor who had more experience than i did, who also literally says on his user page that he is autistic and hard to deal with, and who tagged me on every violation board there is to bring in other editors opinions who would never properly read all of the materials, and who then undeservingly removed all traces of the articles I created. Yes I created another account to try and diffuse the excitement they got from fighting with someone who they could identify. Honestly I would like to create another account which uses an unidentifiable screen and continue what I was working on. I promise to identify any accounts which I have done paid editing for. I do think these editors are being ridiculous because wikipedia was based on open usage on that anyone can create a page and the public will decide what happens to it. These editors are creating a closed loop, policing newly created pages instead of reviewing the over 4,000 pages over 2 months old waiting for publication.
If a page truly doesn't belong people and the editors will remove it. If you think wikipedia is going to be the first search result on google for every major company, celebrity, scientific principal and the people involved aren't going edit them then you guys are dreaming. If you think AT&T's page isn't monitored and edited daily and that what is on their page doesn't come directly from the ATT communications dept then you are dreaming. Creating the pages and allowing the public to adjust them is what wikipedia is all about. Thats how they got the 10,000,000 english pages that they have. Not by editors trolling, not by blocking 27,000+ users and only unblocking 169 of them.. These editors are creating a closed environment which will eventually lead to a competitor becoming more popular. I deal with strategic development so I know. If I were in front of a VC company after this experience i would be pitching the next competitor to wikipedia right now. Let me know what ever else you need me to promise so we can get this resolved.
PS. Dont forget all the scientists who publish their work and discoveries. They are allowed to publish without being flagged because wiki editors aren't equipped to judge the validity of their scientific principles. The whole system of a 2 month review process where literally 1000's of pages fall through the cracks and dont even get reviewed in that time is unfathomable. Having a page created allows for the public to decide on it's fate and not a couple of editors who decide to play Lets See How Many People We Can Ban or Catch today?
If they had been non biased and said well these are good articles but you didnt follow the proper procedures, you are banned but we will review them I might be ok with that.. But instead they put all the articles they aren't equipped to judge up for speedy deletion regardless of the notability of their citations. I owned/ran 3 websites or online magazines which covered art, music, fashion, and film in NY, LA and Miami for over 12 years which wikipedia accepted as an acceptable citation source and many artists did use them on their pages. Thats after I spent 15 years working at and running the largest theatrical merchandising stores in the world.) I am much more qualified to determine relevant sources then some of these people.
Decline reason:
Admitted abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:38, 26 September 2018 (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.
- I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)