User talk:Comfort shoe

Welcome to Wikipedia, Comfort shoe! I'm White Shadows, and I've been editing Wikipedia for a while. I'm here to say hi. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that I'm supposed to recommend to you:

It's a bit like giving you an instruction manual (and who reads the manual), so just ask me if you get stuck with anything. (of if you want those pages in a nutshell) I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, see Wikipedia:Questions, or ask me on my talk page.

And in case your wondering, I am a real person, and this isn't an automated process.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put thank you but the code took me to the wrong page? Anyway Thanks. Comfort shoe (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive fixed that. Hope to see you around :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do socks come up with their names? The creativity is astounding.--Milowent (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not A Nobody, I have edited here for years as an IP. At ANI, IPs are generally dismissed for their opinions but since I expressed one against the almighty Wikipedia Review I guess I simply must be blocked. So much for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Comfort shoe (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have done nothing wrong unless expressing ones opinion civilly is now discouraged. I find the tiresome accusations against inclusionists to be unproductive and ultimately destructive. If they want to "save" articles we have admins who close the deletions who can see through this. I suppose I can simply keep editing as an IP unfettered but have been encouraged to register for an account so a lot of good that did. And how is my "obvious advocacy" any different from any other person commenting on the canvassing issue? Wikipedia Review constantly causes disruption, I simply pointed this out. Comfort shoe (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your being blocked, and are using your unblock request to grandstand about whatever you're advocating for. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 20 May 2010 (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.

What are your IP addresses you edited under Comfort Shoe?--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They usually start with 71.13_. It's an SBC line and changes sometimes midstream Comfort shoe (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't match the blocked IPs of A Nobody, but I'm no expert at those things.--Milowent (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not A Nobody's sock and I've done nothing wrong so this seems like nothing but an effort to silence someone's opinion. I didn't realize criticizing the practices of Wikipedia Review was a blockable offense. Comfort shoe (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm just missing something here, but could I ask why you keep mentioning that you aren't a sock of User:A Nobody? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone changed my userpage to say I was and in the bilateral deletion my comment was struck as a blocked sock. Comfort shoe (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw on the ANI thread that it was Wikipedia Review regulars who accuse me of being a sock of A Nobody, I'm not a sock of anyone and haven't done anything wrong. My userpage should not have been replaced and my comment should not have been struck. Comfort shoe (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, as I am involved in the now-reactivated Arbitration case on A Nobody I will not be reviewing this request. You may have to sit tight for a while as this mess is sorted out. If you aren't AN, you picked exactly the wrong moment to register an account and start making arguments that are strikingly similar ANs usual arguments in deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. I did nothing wrong, am not A Nobody and did nothing but criticize Wikipedia Review in a conversation relevant about them. I did so civilly and have been accused of being someone I'm not. Why should I bother using an account at all if I'm not allowed to give my opinion where others are? How long do I have to wait? Comfort shoe (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the suspected sock notice on your user page. The issue re a Nobody is currently being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#A Nobody

As Beeblebrox says above, there are striking similarities and timing. Note that this is not why you're blocked; that was per your own edits and the near certainty that you're a sock of someone. And please note that I'm not a WR regular, having posted there exactly once sometime last year. If you're not A Nobody, you'll get an apology from me. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your unblock request was handled and the notion that you're A Nobody (who's now banned) seems to have gotten little traction. So, I'm here to apologize for the initial tagging. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct I should not assume you are a regular Wikipedia Reviewer just as you should not assume I'm a sock of anyone. Comfort shoe (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the box and replaced it with {{indef}}. I still have suspicions, though. Your unblock request will be reviewed by someone uninvolved. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why replace my userpage at all? I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Whatever is going on with A Nobody has nothing to do with me. Comfort shoe (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Can someone who hasn't pre-judged me by my few edits please look at this? I don't care about someone else's case or coincidental timing etcetera, I was commenting about Wikipedia Review and them canvassing offsite to delete articles and harass users. I did so clearly and civilly. Or should i abandon this account and simply start a new one and keep my opinions to myself? Is that how consensus is now built? 71.139.19.91 (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as per WP:EVADE and the block policy, if this account is blocked, then you are blocked - and thus could not "revert" to being an IP editor either, else the word WP:SOCK would eventually apply (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, I've been editing for nearly two years under IPs and simply was disgusted with the rhetoric against the so-called inclusionists. I started an account after being encouraged to do so, made my opinion known and now have been accused of being someone's sock. This is part of why I hadn't gone the effort of registering an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.91 (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort shoe, I am happy to review your IP edits if I knew the IP addresses you used, unfortunately the one you posted under twice today are your only two edits under that IP. I totally think you are a sock, but a Richard Jewell scenario is always possible so I'm willing to look at your edits and plead your case if I find it meritorious. I am not an admin, though.--Milowent (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out the absurdity of all this. I have done nothing wrong at all. I usually hit random article and do some needed cleanup of tagged items, my work allows me only a bit of time each day so that has been a good plan. On two articles there was a great turmoil that after unravelling all the nonsense turned out it was a trumped up non-issue problems stemming from Wikipedia Review people canvassing for deletion. One of them apparently has been banned for some time for exactly the problems created. As you as well have prejudged me I do not see the trust I need to go into anything personal about me and I also see no reason not to continue as I had been. I'm sorry you think I must be someone else and sorry the Wikipedia Review people seem to have too much influence, it's obviously detrimental to good decision making. I've wasted my time over the last few days because I expressed my frustration with their tactics and been falsely accused of sock. 71.139.31.13 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) See [1] that is why it makes no sense to track whatever IPs I've used as they are shared by so many other people whose edits I also had nothing to do with. 71.139.31.13 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review is a nice drama source, but this is the internet you know. Its serious f'in business. what were the "two articles" of concern?--Milowent (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Internet, it's Wikipedia. And I didn't do anything wrong, you just assume I must be a sock of someone. I'm not. Comfort shoe (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally a sock, and wikipedia is part of the internet. I cite indisputable proof:[2]--Milowent (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case, you have no proof as there isn't any as I'm not. I've wasted several days awaiting someone neutral to help here and I only have a little time each day. If my not-guilty good faith editing and opinion registered in a discussion where opinions are allowed aren't acceptable i see no reason why I should humor this farce of injustice. I did nothing wrong so will return to my regular editing. If I decide to start another account I'll do so knowing that Wikipedia Review and their shock troops will probably keep causing problems. If someone more level-headed decides to give me a break I'd like to keep using this account despite all these accusations but I don't care that much. Comfort shoe (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had your edits examined by a professional who determined you are a sock. It was my cleaning lady, but she knows her socks.--Milowent (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling here, in fact don't post here again at all. Thank you. Comfort shoe (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I like you (and your response times are awesome). If that's so wrong, bring me to ANI. But I'll leave you alone if you wish. See ya around.--Milowent (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started another account but will be cautious about accusations and paranoia of others. Comfort shoe (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]