User talk:Iridescentlavender

Welcome!

Hello Iridescentlavender, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Cntras (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5-Hour Energy

Thanks for your work so far cleaning up this article, it has needed a bit of straightening out. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very much! It was obviously compromised by those with an interest in the company. Iridescentlavender (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd noticed... ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's Place

Thanks for your very diligent work on this article, which has improved it quite a bit. In regard to 46Bliss, please see WP:MUSICBIO and tell me under which criteria for musician's notability they fall. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of banned users

All edits of banned users are subject to being deleted on sight, as the banned user has abrogated the privilege of editing Wikipedia.

Bans apply to all editing, good or bad
Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. [1]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Otto471 and what evidence do you have that I have anything to do with him? Iridescentlavender (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be foolish. I have nothing to do with Otto4711, which I'm quite sure the checkuser will confirm.

As I've said elsewhere, what makes you think you have the right to play accuser, judge, jury and executioner? You've reverted the edits of someone who hasn't been banned. You've falsely accused me of being someone I'm not. Stop reverting my edits. Iridescentlavender (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I've been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of "Otto4711", another editor who apparently has caused a lot of trouble. I am not that person. The editor who made this accusation, Beyond My Ken, asked that the checkuser be used to determine if this is or is not true. However, instead of waiting for a report, or seeking any form of consensus, he began reverting all of my edits. As you can see, he posted something on my page that's supposed to justify his actions, but it applies to banned users, and I haven't been banned, nor do I expect to be. I hope an administrator will intervene until this matter is settled. Thank you.

--Iridescentlavender (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you seem to think, there is very convincing evidence that account this is a scokpuppet, so it has been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]