User talk:Joytotherainbow

WP:TALK

Please don't remove article talk page discussions without a good reason and consent from other parties to that discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times quotation

From the December 15, 1992 edition:

Jockey KENT DESORMEAUX, who suffered several hairline skull fractures when he was kicked by a horse in a fall at Hollywood Park, continued his improvement yesterday, a track spokesman, MIKE MOONEY, said. As expected, Desormeaux was moved from the intensive-care unit to an observation unit at Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Calif. Cullen328 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source, is this from newspaper.com cause it says says new newspapers added everyday. How am I supposed to know where the come from and not manipulated Joytotherainbow (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not from Newspapers.com. I am a long time New York Times subscriber, and this is right out of their archives. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the link please Joytotherainbow (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTS PEOPLE: HORSE RACING; Desormeaux Improves Here it is. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t say who wrote it. And I am very suspicious that it was made up by racing to make a story and newspapers and Sports illustrated believed it . Equibase is the official database for racing, and for at 8 races he raced after the fall. Here’s the source

https://www.equibase.com/profiles/allStartsPeople.cfm?eID=502&typeSource=JE&rbt=TB&year=1992 Joytotherainbow (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the Equibase database is an infallible source that somehow trumps journalistic coverage by human reporters is ludicrous. Read this and this and this and this and this. Trusting Equibase over human reporters is completely unacceptable. Garbage in, garbage out. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying equibase is all robots. Joytotherainbow (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equibase corrected the true mistakes, they scratched the 1A instead of the 1. read through it. If equibase is garbage, why not remove it from the articles on Wikipedia? Joytotherainbow (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that people who rapidly crank raw data into databases are error-prone, as the several links I have provided demonstrate quote clearly. There is no original human reporting on that website. It is the work of data entry clerks. I never said that the entire website is garbage. Prone to errors is not garbage, but the GIGO phrase is illustrative. Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Masai giraffe per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masai giraffe. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Account, are you going off of IP addresses cause that does change sometimes, and I might just be in the same range. I was gonna leave it at what I wrote on talk page of Kent Desormeaux, but Jlvsclrk, i believe tried to poke the bear, cause he never cited any source to debunk or prove a glitch in the database. I was very suspicious and was trying to tell them to leave me alone that their motive was to get me to say I was wrong and they were right.

Where’s the proof I was a sock puppet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joytotherainbow (talk • contribs)

You can't see this proof as it's based on private technical evidence. If you want to appeal the block you need to follow the instructions above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t seem to get the unblock, reason here

Just follow the instructions given by Dreamy Jazz. Copy and paste the unblock request, and please give us an adaquate answer on getting you unblocked. However, since you were a sockpuppet of another user you have created (which is blocked now) it's most likely the unblock request will be denied. Sarrail (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for reference, please see WP:GAB, WP:AAB, and WP:BLOCK if you really want to be unblocked. You may use the Unblock Ticket Request System as an alternate. Sarrail (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also pretty clear now that you were evading two previous recent partial IP blocks, namely this one and this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, UTRS only tells check user blocks to email the Arbs. I did not do that because the behavioral evidence is clear even to me. (They won't disclose that information publicly due to privacy concerns.) I'll say email the Arbs now 'cause Dreamy Jazz already did that above. arbcom-en

wikimedia.org They will discus the evidence privately. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #64572

is closed. Checkuser block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned to stop using your talk page to continue a pointless argument. Talk page access revoked. Rest assured that if you return with another account, that account will be blocked in a much swifter fashion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]