User talk:BaseFree

BaseFree, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BaseFree! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hartley Sawyer

In this edit summary at Hartley Sawyer, you said there were three sources, however, only Deadline Hollywood is cited. I've since gone in to add the E! Online citation, which again, was never there in the first place. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I misread the paragraph as to where the other sources were--BaseFree (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live PD

The statement said as of the end of this week, so June 19 would be good as the cut-off point, no matter what other markets did or did not do. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob Movie

Hey, why did you revert this edit? BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit summary--BaseFree (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But this source explicitly says 2021? BOVINEBOY2008 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 21:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Web films

Stop reverting changes to web films such as The Cloverfield Paradox, Scoob!, and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run. As I kept reminding you, if these movies didn't premiere in theatres and instead premiered through VOD and/or a streaming service, then they are web films. Continue to do so could have you blocked from editing. - Cineplex (talk) - 12:17AM - June 24, 2020

Why? Because you disagree? Disagreement is not grounds for blocking--BaseFree (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cineplex, please read WP:OTHER. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the definition used on Wikipedia does not match with the one you intend, Cineplex. The films weren’t made with the internet or its constraints in mind. Its non-theatrical distribution was decided as a last resort and after production of the films had already completed--BaseFree (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, they should be referred to as direct-to-video? That’s pretty much what they are anyway! Cineplex (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just films is fine.--BaseFree (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Are a brand new user or is this account is a WP:VALIDALT? -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m new. Why?--BaseFree (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, well spotted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did he do? Make false accusations about me behind my back and never explain his actions to my face? I am not a sockpuppet, and there is no actual evidence to prove that I am--BaseFree (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Simmerdon3448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. This is my first account and in no way have I used it inappropriately. I had no idea I was being investigated, NOBODY WARNED ME. This was done behind my back. I don’t know what else to tell you but I am 100% innocent.--BaseFree (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the behavioural and technical evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simmerdon3448.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 26 June 2020 (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.

That is not evidence of anything. I have displayed zero vitriol, adding to the fact that the accusations are baseless. The block isn’t valid and my appeal is completely valid. I have never made a sockpuppet account. If every person whoever had the same ideology existed on Wikipedia was a sockpuppet, 99% of people would be blocked, and yet my block was entirely based on that. If there was real behavioral evidence, I’d have a recurrent history of edit warring, covering the exact same ground, and refusing to use the talk page. Where’s the evidence of that?--BaseFree (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block isn’t valid and my appeal is completely valid. I have never made a sockpuppet account. If every person whoever had the same ideology existed on Wikipedia was a sockpuppet, 99% of people would be blocked, and yet my block was entirely based on that. If there was real behavioral evidence, I’d have a recurrent history of edit warring, covering the exact same ground, and refusing to use the talk page. Where’s the evidence of that? If you can’t provide actual behavioral evidence, then there’s no reason to uphold a wrongful, frivolous block. The investigation didn’t even provide me a chance to defend myself. Netoholic’s message was not a proper warning, which means whatever methods were used to determine my alleged guilt were not used properly, and therefore I must be unblocked--BaseFree (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Foolish unblock request. Your block was based on technical and behavioral data; you've been socking long enough for people to know you. Now, you have an opportunity: stop this foolishness and see if six months is enough time for you to reacquaint yourself with our policies and guidelines, and to re-evaluate what it is that you want with your life and with this website. If there is something positive there, we'll hear about it in six months, if you refrain from socking. If not, we'll just keep blocking the next account, and the next. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2020 (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.

I have made over 1100 edits to this website. What was negative about those edits? What did I actually do wrong? How am I a negative presence to this website? Whatever data you have should show I’m not a sockpuppet, and insisting that I am one based on flawed data is the wrong way to go about it. Especially because you did not let me defend myself in the first place. Proper procedure was not followed, that much is clear. I am not the Simmerdon person you claim me to be, and I am much more versed in policy than they are. To claim I’m not versed in policies and guidelines when I haven’t violated any is continuing to frame me for things I did not do. Address me as BaseFree, the only user I’ve ever been on this site, and no one else. If it’s foolish to make unblock requests based on a faulty investigation, then that says a lot about the system--BaseFree (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Simmerdon, that's enough nonsense out of you: you keep repeating the same nonsense ("oh I was blocked cause y'all don't like me"), and it's tiresome. No one wants to be lied to. I am going to revoke talk page access, since my advice to you clearly fell on deaf ears and you're just wasting time. If the next admin decides to grant your unblock request, they can restore TPA. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was accused of sockpuppetry. I have never used other accounts, but I was blocked because of an investigation that went entirely behind my back. I was never formally notified. They claim to have evidence based on “behavioral data”, apparently, because of edits I’ve made based on current events. There are over 350 million people in the US, and apparently if they can assume that a blocked user and an editing user have the same ideology, they must be the same person. Getting involved with controversy was never my intention when I created the account. I was asked if I was new or I was a valid alt. I answered truthfully, that I was a new account. That doesn’t mean I was unfamiliar to Wikicode, which is apparently what my accuser thought. Knowing Wikicode shouldn’t implicate me as anyone other than myself. If that’s the “behavioral data” they have, then that’s pretty darn flimsy data and should be discarded. I never violated process, and I was painted with “increasing levels of vitriol” with no actual evidence to the claims. Now suddenly I’m being told I have to "reacquaint myself with policies and guidelines" when I’ve never violated any of them. That I need to “re-evaluate [my] life and what [I] want with this website” when I’ve done no harm to it. I’ve been a very positive contributor and I want to continue contributing to it. I shouldn’t have to wait months when I had a completely clean record beforehand. The attack on my character is unwarranted.--BaseFree (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You would do well to follow the advice offered by Drmies, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2020 (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.