User talk:Beickus

Hello, Beickus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

2012 World Snooker Championship

Not every score, that is higher than 100 is a century break, see Snooker.org reference for centuries. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 08:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beickus. 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) 18:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18540 was submitted on Jun 17, 2017 15:25:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18542 was submitted on Jun 17, 2017 19:08:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

i have only one account someone please help

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:19, 18 June 2017 (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 formatted that so that those who can review the request are notified. You may want to expand on that reason, though. Huon (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huon - you might want to read the guide, and then explain your situation. If no other CheckUser responds before I get to it, I will review this request tomorrow. —DoRD (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: thank you for your concern and your time to discuss this, at least you left a (small) possibility that I am right - I will continue until vindicated

@SQL: I generally understand what happened (the contact we had with Huon was very positive on that) but i am eager to discuss it again with you too and with anybody who means to help; it seems the best I can do to prove my point is to continue fighting - I repeat it - i have only one account, I as a person have used only this account, this is a set up.

@DoRD: thank you for your concern, I am available to discuss it whenever possible - i have to say, i embrace this opportunity of say a native flaw of the system and/or an exploitation of a flaw by someone (because that is what this is about in my opinion), to become more involved. I have used edit on Wikipedia on my one and only account less than a handful of times (although i would like to do more because i really like and respect Wikipedia). Maybe it needs situations like this for people to question their ability to be certain about something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beickus (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beickus, after discussing this with Huon and Bbb23, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and unblock your account. —DoRD (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't believe me and you are not convinced don't unlock it - but you have to give me the chance to answer and defend myself. You should provide what evidence you have here in the open so I can argue and refute it.Beickus (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that you were unblocked, right? CheckUser evidence is never published due to a combination of privacy and WP:BEANS reasons, but apparently there were sufficient doubts despite the technical evidence to not associate this account with the others. Huon (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Beickus, I unblocked your account a couple of days ago, so you are once again free to edit. —DoRD (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the right thing to do. Evidently the system works! Beickus (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chrysostomos of Smyrna, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed forgot to cite the source, thank you for pointing this. Beickus (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. Dr. K. 23:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Pablomartinez. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Fire of Manisa— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. PabloMartinez (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After this brief experience with Wikipedia i decided to cancel my contribution here indefinitely. The honest intent to edit a bad article is met with suspicion very often and has to undergo considerations that have nothing to do with science or truth but rather politics. Moreover, obstacles may fall from everywhere imaginable or not: i was even accused of having a fake account without any explanation. Maybe others will have more patience to deal with this system Beickus (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]