User talk:Cabbage1233456

May 2013

Hello, I'm Demiurge1000. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Amanda Platell, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for controversial information about living people, and the material was likely WP:UNDUE anyway until more details are known and reliably sourced.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage1233456: The article was written by the person in question NOT a third party. You can't get much more reliable than that.

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabbage1233456, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkdw ^talk 07:56, 8 June 2013 (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).

Cabbage1233456 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Cabbage1233456 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You made a grossly offensive unsubstantiated accusation against another editor. It was certainly a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and of the policy on personal attacks, and very probably a violation of libel law. The only thing about this block which might be open to reconsideration is that it is for so short a period. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2013 (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).

Cabbage1233456 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Cabbage1233456 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to deal with your gross and insulting comment that JamesBWatson refers to below. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 8 June 2013 (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.

Citation needed. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. The paragraph I inserted, which is what he reported me for into the article was accurate and referenced.

Eeer I'd like you to show me where the abuse or harassment has been taking place. Editing an article, inserting factual, referenced material is not abuse or harassment. In fact if you look above you will see that *I* have been the victim of false accusations regarding sockpuppetry from the same person who reported me for harassment and abuse. He also lied when he said this went against talk page consensus and that my edit was not sourced. Is this how Wikipedia deals with new editors?

Note to the admin reviewing this unblock request: See the revision-deleted edit at Talk:Amanda Platell. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]