User talk:JustANameInUse

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I asked a simple question based on facts I collected and I get banned. I didn't even edit anything outside the discussions besides a few test edits. I didn't deface any page or anything similar. And a vegan editor calls me biased and combatative so I get banned because I responded? I'm neither a proponent of some diet nor against one. Just asking questions on how to write an article. If you unban me I will prove it.

Decline reason:

You were combatative, deeply so. If you don't see that, I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for you. We work on consensus and collaboration here; see WP:CONSENSUS. In any case, you haven't mentioned your probable violations of WP:SOCK and will need to do so. WP:GAB goes into more detail on how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know how to defend myself from being accused of sockpuppetry except by claiming I'm not one. This is my first and only account on wikipedia ever. I re-read my comments and they can be interpreted as combatative. I'm a direct person who communicates directly so I understand that that can be seen as aggressive by some and will tone it down in the future. I'm asking for a chance to write the article on I asked about, unbiased and correctly sourced and formatted. Thank you. JustANameInUse (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If this is your "first and only account on Wikipedia ever", then how come your very first edit says "For example, I just edited a carnivore disambiguation page ..."? Hmm? How could you have made other edits before starting your "first and only account"? Unless you're a sockpuppet, perhaps? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2020 (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.

Hello, JustANameInUse,

Most new editors start editing at articles where they see a typo or mistake or see an opportunity where they could add a valuable reference. You've been editing a day and repeatedly go on about "biased vegan" editors. Again and again and again. Before you have even tried improving an article. Can you not see how that is unnecessarily combative? It doesn't look promising for collaborative editing when you are already condemning unnamed editors as "biased" before you have even had a discussion on an article talk page about an edit you have a disagreement about. It's impossible to edit Wikipedia and not occasionally have disputes with other editors and you don't appear to be equipped to talk with people who have different opinions than your own. Because you lack neutrality, you are unlikely to get unblocked unless you can admit to that your approach was hostile and persuade an admin you can work with editors who might have disagreements without accusing them of bias. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz::: Is this how things work here? If you ask a question and point out obviously biased people you get banned and called combatative and aggressive? Editors who have in their own pages text saying they are vegans and who oppose the writing of a article about a diet they are ideologically diametrically opposed. One of them even slandered me to be another user who he had a beef with, trying to get me banned before I even write something, laughing at me for asking a question and you call me out for not being collaborative? How is it even allowed that a toxic person with such an obvious bias can even edit articles that oppose his ideology? Don't you see how this looks from the outside? I thought it was about writing a quality encyclopedia, free of biases and POV but what little time I spent here it looks like editors enjoy having their own ideological fiefs and protecting them from anyone interfering. I won't be trying to remove this ban. You also lost a donator. JustANameInUse (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JustANameInUse: If you ask a question and point out obviously biased people No, it is not obvious at all that the editors you've accused as biased are so. Accusations like this require evidence, otherwise it is likely to be construed as a personal attack. Besides, getting unblocked isn't about what others did. It is about your conduct and whether you believe the block is not necessary because you understand why you have been blocked and won't do so again. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: And now user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psychologist_Guy is accusing another person, as he did the same to me, that he is my sockpuppet to get him off contributing to the Carnivore diet article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Life200BC And I can't even comment there or defend that user from slander because of this ban. Psychologist_Guy, who claims not to be a vegan advocate here but has veganism all over his user page, and has vandalized a lot of different diet articles(keto, paleo...) that don't confirm to his vegan bias now reversed a good sourced link on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet that was showing it to be nutritionally deficient. Because to him, a source like https://collegeofmedicine.org.uk from a PhD in public health nutrition is not reliable. This is a disgusting and serious example of his bias and wikipedia editors continuous acceptance of such vandalism.JustANameInUse (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case:Forgot to answer the user Daniel Case who reviewed my request. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just assume something, found a vague explanation for your action and called it quits? I explained what I did and why I did it. I didn't even hide that those were my edits done on the same day and from the same IP. And you call me a sockpuppet? If I was I would try to hide it, don't you think? JustANameInUse (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is talk page abuse because you are continuing to attack editors, you call any editor you do not like a "biased vegan". Instead of talking about content you talk about editors and attack them, that is one of the reasons your account was blocked. You should have your talk-page access removed (I will request that). But It's quite clear I am not a vegan. I have not vandalized any articles. I have created over 110 articles on Wikipedia. You joined Wikipedia to attack other editors that is why you were blocked and you are still doing it. I created a vegan and vegetarian wikiproject group so users could help improve articles in that subject area (you don't need to be a vegan to join it). If you look closely I have actually added peer reviewed articles criticizing its health outcomes on several occasions. As for the planetary diet article. I added a peer-reviewed paper criticising it [1]. Nothing you say has any basis in fact. You have a big axe to grind and you are too angry to edit Wikipedia. We need to cooperate and respect each other here, you obviously cannot do that. You calling other editors biased vegans just because they disagree with you gives a very bad vibe here. None of the editors you have accused of being vegan are actually vegan but even if they were you are basically revealing a hate-filled vegaphobia which is discrimination.

As for the collegeofmedicine it an alternative medicine website and not reliable. Please see College of Medicine (UK) and its author you were trying to add is a well known fad diet promoter, not a scientist. I don't think you understand WP:RELIABLE or WP:MEDRS and it seems you want to promote pseudoscience. But that aside you are too abusive. It's unlikely you will be unblocked but yes I did file an SPI because there has been a lot of sock-puppets on the carnivore diet article. I do apologise if you are not a sock-puppet but there are suspicious behaviors with your account and another one. Take care. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, do you even hear yourself? Suspicious activity on my part? I have been nothing but honest since I got here. No, you are a liar and a vegan promoter here who has been vandalizing diet articles to promote your ideology. Your occasional addition of something you think is unbiased you consider evidence against that? Are you serious? You can deny it as much as you want but your edit history is clear for all to see. Everyone who tries to write a article about the carnivore diet you accuse of socetpuppetry, being biased, anti-science and abusive in order to either get them banned of for them to leave here of their own accord after they see how pointless is to argue with vegan activists like you. The effect is the same. You are gaming the wikipeda system for ideological reasons and you should be ashamed. And I got your perfidity here, funny how you call college of medicine an unreliable source yet allow similar quack sites to be referenced on your various articles you wrote about vegan activist no one has heard off. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_B._Amos the second reference is to https://www.ordergoldenage.co.uk/obituaries/henry-brown-amos/ and that is for you a reliable source. A friutarian propaganda site? You are so full of it is incredible. JustANameInUse (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are a liar and a vegan promoter here who has been vandalizing diet articles to promote your ideology. Personal attacks like this are not going to get you unblocked. Unblock reasoning must focus on you, and why the block is either not or no longer necessary. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300:If you think it is a personal attack to expose bias and a user who vandalizes wikipedia because of his ideology I can't help you. As you said in your previous message, you need evidence. True. So go over his post history. It is public and I'm astounded nobody has went over it. It took me five minutes to find an inconsistency in his approach (calling one source a quackery because it is against a diet he ideologically supports and using a similar source from a quack fruitarian site for his own article on a vegan activist no one has even heard about, see my previous post). Go look at his constant accusations of sock-puppetry against anyone who tries to write a article on the Carnivore diet. Why doesn't wikipedia have a vetting system for editors? I said I won't be looking to get unblocked because I don't believe it will happen. JustANameInUse (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you feel that way, but this isn't about me, or anyone else here. It's about your conduct and why you should be unblocked. And just to be clear, accusing a fellow editor of being a liar without evidence (presented in diffs explicitly, not a simple "go look at their edit history") is a personal attack. That is tried and tested on Wikipedia. And if you aren't looking to be unblocked, then I don't see any reason why you'd need talk page access either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry B. Amos is notable, he co-founded the League Against Cruel Sports. He wasn't a vegan he was a vegetarian and he is a historical individual, notable because we even have an entry for him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [2]. If someone is notable then they deserve a Wikipedia article, see WP:N]. As said I have created over 110 articles, unfortunately you don't understand how Wikipedia works or what a reliable reference is and now your existence here has resorted to attack me in every edit you make. But why single out just one vegetarian? I have created articles for anti-vegetarians as well Isaac Burney Yeo, F. W. Forbes Ross and Arnaldo Cantani (who funnily enough proposed an exclusive meat diet). I am not trying to promote any diet on Wikipedia, I have created many different articles for different individuals. Unfortunately, JustANameInUse is still being abusive by calling other editors "liars", "biased" and "vegans". He should have his talk-access removed. This is the most abusive user I have seen on Wikipedia in a while, I will not further respond here. But I forgot to mention about the critics of vegetarianism category, who created that and added all those people I wonder? It wasn't me was it? Because I am supposedly a vegan activist! Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:JustANameInUse and talk page access. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.