User talk:Bubbagump1234

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly put, don't copy/paste texts from external websites to Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2015 (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).

Bubbagump1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No real reason for block, Who/What is Gospel veracity, Above welcome to wikipedia is listed twice. But is anyone really welcome? I asked one question and made one edit then I was blocked. I have been blocked before but I have done nothing wrong now, as far as I know since I never knew why I was blocked before. I was discussing an article about electricity and proper citation. Blocks should not be punitive or as a means of bulling other users. I think that it is likely so called admins are given too much power. Since they are not required to have a good/real reason to block people. Maybe a block should require a quarrem of 12 or more admins before implemented.

Decline reason:

In this edit you mention that you were banned before. Could you provide some more details? PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (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.

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).

Bubbagump1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I could not give you much details. I was also editing something to do with electricity a few years ago. I was blocked. Then I went to the Admin's talk page to ask why, but they refused to answer. I then did an unblock request that was denied like this one was. Then I was blocked from my own talk page. So I gave up on wikipedia. I no longer have that e-mail address and do not remember the account. Today, I thought I would give wikipedia another chance. But it would seem a disagreement on a talk page about citations got me blocked again. How is a new user supposed to get started if a few can decided if they have anything to offer? It appears it should be more difficult to block someone. maybe there are too many admins...

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block, which is block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 4 April 2015 (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.

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).

Bubbagump1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OhNoitsJamie I actually did. For one I am not associated in any way to user Gospel veracity. It appears that I was blocked in reality because I disagreed with users Richard Harvey & Materialscientist on a talk page discussing how to properly cite an edit. In fact it was user Materialscientist that blocked me. Which is why I am indicating there might be too many people with admin privileges. Just look at my contribs.

Decline reason:

Firstly, since Materialscientist blocked not just this account, but also User:Maya.bajwa as a sock of User:Gospel veracity, with no edits for Maya.bajwa, there's no reason to doubt that technical evidence links those three accounts. That would need to be addressed. Secondly, "A couple of years ago someone totally unfairly blocked me, I evaded that block, and totally unfairly nobody unblocked me, so I'm evading the block again now" is not addressing that past block. Given the problems with reading comprehension shown in the discussion at Materialscientist's talk page and your general tendency to immediately blame everybody else (what did KrakatoaKatie do to have you asking for a desysopping?), I'm more inclined to believe you were blocked for good reasons that you did not (or did not want to) understand. You would need to provide your old username or some other means to identify your past account (say, an article you edited and a description of the edit you madde, including an approximate date, so we can look it up in the page history, plus the blocking admin's username) if you want us to look into that old block; merely evading it is not acceptable. To me all of this looks more like trolling than good-faith contributions. Huon (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2015 (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.

It may possibly be a need to revoke admin privileges from Richard Harvey, KrakatoaKatie & Materialscientist (talk) and others. It would seem there are too many admins for wikipedia. They use their status to bully editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbagump1234 (talk • contribs)

This account is blocked because of block evasion. When you get blocked then you're not supposed to just make a new account and continue editing. You're supposed to request an unblock on your original account. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor claims not to remember their previous account which would technically be a good excuse for not logging into that account instead of making a new one. But this current account is blocked as another account of User:Gospel veracity -- is this true or not? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't see the similarity but apparently a checkuser confirmed it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least that's what the tag says, but was it actually confirmed? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually I am not, and have never claimed to be, an Administrator. Nor was I involved in discussing citations. I merely noted that the user stated in his post:- Here that he had been blocked previously and pointed out that he was obviously editing as a sockpuppet of an unknown to me indef blocked user, for block evasion. However Materialscientist, the admin who blocked this sockpuppet, is one of the few admins with Checkuser rights and has obviously confirmed the two accounts are the same person and blocked this sockpuppet, along with another that he has created, see Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gospel veracity. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]