User talk:Makofakeoh

Coups

Hello, I see that you are quite adamant on the subject of coups, but please be cautious, given WP:3RR. I think the best approach would be to get advice at WP:RSN. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I haven't exceeded that. You are more invested than I, not only on this subject, but politics in general. You are part of the same ongoing discussion on the talk page. Until there is a clear consensus against it, I am following what the plurality of editors and consensus in the press is flowing. No reason to leave it out until then as it is sourced by many reputable mainstream sources in the press calling it "an attempted coup". Makofakeoh (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Gregg Phillips, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Photoshopping swastikas into an image, or uploading pictures with a swastika photoshopped into it, is about as disruptive as can be. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmieswoah! Hold on. I didn’t do that. Yes. I uploaded the image but I got it from a conservative site that told me it was fair use. As I told the other editor I never altered it. The offensive mark on the image itself came from Philip’s own thumbnail from a video HE was sharing from this own personal YouTube account. Maybe the channel was trolling him. Or hacked somehow. But on my tiny iPhone SE there was no way for me to know. Jus saying! Makofakeoh (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

Drmies (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies So my husband and me cannot have seperate accounts from the same household?!??! And FYI neither we nor I were ever pretending to be separate anon IPs. Yes, of course that is me. And what’s the point of being able to occasionally edit when logged out if it creates this kind of paranoid accusation?!?!?? Maybe I’m not always at home, and when out and about it’s just easier to use a public computer at the coffee shop I frequent. Like I want some stranger to have possible access to my account from a public location once I log in.

So, go ahead and check me against this other suspected user you listed at the SPI. When you find out you are wrong, and you are, then will you right this wrong as well!?!? Sheeesh! Makofakeoh (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, feel free to file an unblock request, and another CU will look over my shoulder. But besides those two accounts (and if a CU looks at it they will find technical data which make your story unlikely), there's also a ton of logged-out editing, which is already a violation of our policies. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies We have a phone, a tablet and a couple of laptops we share. Please check the internal IPs of those devices as well, if that is what is meant by “technical data”, as I can guarantee you I am not ZemenfesKidus.lol Nor are we up to any shenanigans, or meatpuppetry- intentional or otherwise.

As for the rest, I have double-checked Wikipedia policy: and anon IP editing, and debating on talk pages, is most certainly allowed. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be allowed period. I’m fact, that’s the catch 22 here, as I was “encouraged” to make an account and then when I do, get in trouble when I have been making the majority of my serious vanilla edits from there. Aside from the Gregg Philips page, I only see Wikipedia “strongly recommending” account creation, for protected pages mostly, not requiring it outside of that.

Again, when y’all discover that I’m not in fact these other two disruptive editors (which seems to be the crux of your concerns here- i.e.the rampant anon IP editing from them) then please make note of it so I can properly appeal this WP:WITCHHUNT of a block. And if necessary, I can simply ask my husband who is a movie reviewer to not use his account (or properly label his account, referring me) to avoid further confusion?

Maybe just ask next time rather than jumping to hurtful conclusions?!?? It’s embarrassing and borders on a WP:CENSORSHIP cancel-culture mentality. Makofakeoh (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I can promise you that I am not ZemenfesKidus , nor am I affiliated with whoever the heck that is- the same goes for his seemingly endless anonIPs (also not me!). Don’t you have the tools to thoughtfully check out our internal device IPS? That should prove it right there.

I don’t think it would be fair to group me with that guy simply because your gut tells you so.lol Please take the time to thoughtfully investigate that forthwith? And then when you find out that I am NOT in fact him, please make note of it? Makofakeoh (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.