User talk:Byanose

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Whittemore Peterson Institute worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not continue to add material which has been removed by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whittemore Peterson Institute ‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to WP. As AR says read the various guidelines before editing controversial articles. As a newcomer it is always safer to discuss any changes in the talk pages first and try to reach consensus or at least the support of some more experienced editors. Also when raising points on the talk pages, try to stick to the content itself and why the RS supports your changes. Try to avoid getting into direct criticism of other editors. -- TerryE (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Yea sorry, forgot my password for Barney, and didn't realise the 3rr rule was for the same page, thought it was for a particular change. No probs won't happen again.Byanose (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you say below that you are "not trying to have anything unblocked", I assume this is not an unblock request. (However, I would have declined it anyway, for reasons I will explain below.) JamesBWatson (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2011 (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.

Can you please explain what you mean by "forgot my password for Barney"? Sandstein 09:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on piece of paper and then lost it. Byanose (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are already blocked as Barny Toll and, it seems as One000. Creation of multiple accounts to evade a block does not enhance your unblock prospects.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I can say. I'm not trying to have anything unblocked, only to explain that I have forgotten my password for Barney. Believe me I am very prepared to wait until the block had passed. I won't create another account and don't intend to mess you around. I'm certain I understand the rules now and you won't get any trouble from me again. The only account I know the password for is the Byanose one. The One000 was set up ages ago and I never used it, again forgot the password, but I was still logged in on that computer under that name, which I didn't realise at the time. Thought it best when others didn't like what I was correcting to leave the name thing as I never thought it was a problem. I had forgotten I had even created a log in on the other computer and I don't remember when that was. Must have been months ago. It is obviously a big no for wikipedia. I accept that and I'm sorry.Byanose (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also, like I said, on shared computerByanose (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAn I add that I thought you would tell me which one I could use and when (which is obviously a problem when I only know the password on this one) and didn't intend to make it look like I was appealing a block. Hope that helps. Byanose (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:One000 was created on April 13th this year. Some ten days ago only at the time I type this.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Toll on April 2nd, and Byanose on April 17th. Your point was?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't I swear. It was months ago. Does it not register until you use it?Barney Toll 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, that's fine, but there is something up here as the account mentioned was created months ago. Barney Toll 23:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The account Barny Toll was created on 2 April 2011 at 11:45, and made its first edit at 11:46, one minute later; One000 was created on 13 April 2011 at 14:35, and made its first edit five days later, at 12:28, 18 April; Byanose was created on 17 April 2011 at 13:52 and made its first edit 59 minutes later, at 14:51, 17 April. It is very difficult to see how you could think you created any of those accounts "months ago".

The "lost my password" issue might have been true, and on that basis I might have considered giving you the benefit of the doubt, despite the improbability of "didn't realise I was still logged on". However, unfortunately you throw away any good will by your persistent attempts at deception. You unambiguously tried to make out on the sockpuppet investigation page that you were not the same user. If it was all an innocent "lost password" and "didn't realise I was logged on" then why did you not admit it at once? And then we have the "months ago" issue, and even when the dates of creation of the accounts were revealed, you proceeded to dig yourself further into a hole by denying those dates. There are also several other details which are at least questionable, such as this edit followed by this one. In summary, you created multiple accounts, used two of them in the same edit war, and, when that fact was revealed, you shifted from one set of attempted deceptions to another. I am half-inclined to extend the block on Barny Toll to indefinite, and tell you that if you ever wish to be unblocked you will have some persuading to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was stupid enough to think I could ignore the mistake and get back to editing with Byanose. Again, it is true the account was created months ago. Surely you have this data. Try it yourself. Create an account. Don't use it. Then in a week use it and see what date you have as the creation date for that account. Please try it first and see. Barney Toll 23:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I'm totally confused by all this, because the I never logged in on the other computer, didn't think to, so I must have created it months ago.Barney Toll 23:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to "try it first and see", because I have already done it. I created this account 10 days before I edited with it. And, amazingly enough, the creation log gives a date 10 days earlier than my editing history gives for my first edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have no idea what has happened, because I definitely don't remember creating that in the last few weeks. it is very confusing Perhaps someone else will spot this eventually. It's probably not worth the hassle editing those pages with the group currently involved. Couldn't even get them to accept that Mikovit's job title changed. Please make sure it doesn't turn into an HGRV denial propaganda site. Too many lives are affected by this retrovirus. I'm not even sure they understand that you can use primary sources as evidence. Thanks.Barney Toll 09:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, the edits on this page are where I am trying to be truthful. I'm am trying to get across what has happened. I have always had a bad habit of going back and reediting comments because I leave something out. You can see that from the talk pages and on here when I post right after I have posted. I am on shared computers. You should be able to see that.Barney Toll 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to think how to communicate this to you so that you don't think I'm trying to deceive you or drive you crazy or anything. Again, I apologise for not admitting it before, I was stupid. But why would I create two accounts on the same computer within the space of a minute, when I also have access to another machine? That's what you are saying you can see isn't it? It doesn't make sense.Barney Toll 00:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfectly good sense. you have been caught out in sockpuppetry and in a lie. We already know that you are trying to deceive us, and we are not easy to drive crazy. Your only way forward is to come clean; continued denial will be to your long-term disadvantage. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]