User talk:G. Aperdome

In response to your feedback

That usually happens if you accidentally put a space before the first word of a paragraph. Be careful and double check what you write.

Abigail was here :D (Need Some Help? Click Me!) 13:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at The Perfect Host, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sudo Ghost 02:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G. Aperdome. Thank you. Sudo Ghost 01:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My original account was unfairly and unjustly blocked by SudoGhost because I replaced a synopsis (which another user on the talk page had also complained contained "spoilers" from beginning to end) with a more appropriate synopsis containing no spoilers which was respectful to viewers who have yet to view the film. It was deemed acceptable by SudoGhost that the user who posted the spoiler synopsis could delete a previous synopsis and replace it with their inappropriate synopsis, yet I was not allowed to replace their inappropriate synopsis and replace it with a new synopsis. Why did SudoGhost allow one user to delete a synopsis and replace it with a spoiler synopsis but I was not allowed to replace a synopsis? Surely everyone can contribute a synopsis to Wikipedia, not just one person. As I was blocked and did not fully understand the Wikipedia regulations, I opened another account to try to rectify the situation. I now realize that it was unacceptable to have multiple accounts and will not use another account. However I would appreciate an explanation of why I was not allowed to contribute a synopsis in the first place, and why another user's synopsis was protected. And I would also appreciate my original account being unblocked. Thank you for your consideration.

Sockpuppet unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi. I created another account for two reasons. Firstly I am not the most computer savvy person in the world and did not understand Wikipedia's regulations. I do now so I will not use or create another account in the future. And secondly, because I had been unjustly blocked by another administrator, I created another account to enable me to try and rectify the situation. I had been blocked for replacing a synopsis of the movie The Perfect Host which contained spoilers with a synopsis that contained no spoilers and was respectful to viewers who have yet to see the film. (Another user on the film's talk page also complained that the synopsis contained spoilers). The user who posted the spoiler synopsis had deleted another user's previous synopsis and replaced it with their spoiler synopsis, and was not blocked. But when I replaced the spoiler synopsis with a new synopsis I was blocked. This doesn't seem right or fair. I had tried previously to post a new synopsis but every time I did my synopsis was deleted and the spoiler synopsis was instantly reposted. So I added a 'Spoiler Alert' heading to the spoiler synopsis but that too was instantly deleted. It seemed that someone, perhaps the user who posted the spoiler synopsis or the administrator who placed the block; SudoGhost, was determined to protect the spoiler synopsis and prevent me from posting a new synopsis. This was confusing as I assumed that everyone has the right to contribute a film synopsis to Wikipedia, not just one person. As I had done nothing wrong, simply added a synopsis as many others had previously done, and was blocked for no understandable reason, I would appreciate an explanation of why I was prevented from posting a synopsis and why I was then blocked please. And would you also please consider unblocking my original account. Thank you for your consideration G. Aperdome (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After being blocked for an action your solution was to create a new account and pursue the same action? You truly thought this would be acceptable behavior? Regardless of the particulars (which may have had merit on some level if addressed from your original account), your request complicates any possible unblock. Tiderolls 02:05, 25 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't explain the situation fully in my first unblock request. Not only am I not as computer knowledgable as others but I had not read any of the regulations before contributing to Wikipedia, I wasn't even aware that there were any, so I was not aware that creating another account was unacceptable. However I do now understand that it is unacceptable to have multiple accounts, so I will not use or create any other accounts in the future. I read on the information page that if someone has made an innocent mistake and has stated that they will not repeat that mistake then Wikipedia is usually understanding and lifts the blocking. So I hope you will be kind enough to reconsider my situation and remove the unblocking. Thank you again for your considerationG. Aperdome (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2012 (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.

Unless you operated accounts other than those to which you have been associated, your timeline is out of kilter. The first edit made from User:Pearn22 occurred more than 12 hours before this account was blocked. So, your statement that you created a new account to "to enable me to try and rectify the situation" after being "unjustly blocked by another administrator" is not supported by the editing histories. Further, to address your statement that you weren't "even aware that there were any [regulations]", the questions posed in my decline were not policy based. I do not see how one could reach the conclusion that an action that resulted in a warning mentioning the jeopardy of losing of one's editing privilege could be successfully executed by creating another account. Would not the action be just as incorrect if attempted by 10 different accounts? Or one hundred? Tiderolls 05:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]