User talk:Mark Peres
This is my experience of wikipedia, so far.
I have created an account with the name Mark Peres, but my name is actually Mark Camilleri. It seemed that Mark Camilleri was already in use, so I opted to use Mark Peres instead which is an old moniker I use for online accounts.
I have edited the part of Naxxar's page on the etymology of the name. The previous part of the page was referenced by what seems to be a bot from an unreliable and non-scientific website which does not source its information. Instead, I replaced wiki's reference for a reference by Godfrey Wettinger, from his book on the etymology of Maltese place-names.
Different editors of wikipedia deleted my change and reverted to the old one. I have edited back my change since my reference is actually correct. May I also add that Godfrey Wettinger's reference is as of now, the only scientific case for the etymology of the name.
Upon editing back my change, I was banned for one day on the ground that I am involved in an edit war.
Soon after I was blocked indefinitely by a wiki bot on the grounds that I had created a new account called Naxxar Historian. This is not true and I wouldn't do such childish things, but I don't know how the wiki editors came to the conclusion that I opened a new account.
This is my first experience with wikipedia and it helped me understand further more why a lot of the information is unreliable. Bots seem to be gathering information from online websites which is then edited by wikipedia editors to fit a house style. However, there is a very limited way in which lay-users can contest the information with proven and reliable sources.
Mark Camilleri
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Naxxar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 46.166.190.167. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
REPLY TO ABOVE My source is Godfrey Wettinger who is a professional historian, contrary to the fictional sources used originally. I am a certified historian and I am correcting mistakes which have been posted here by bots or dilettantes who have used online websites as their source (I am using scientific material). Please don't vandalise my edits again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Peres (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The information you stated in your response above does not describe a source that can be referenced nor verified at all. I could say that I'm referencing the master of the Universe and that this person is sitting right here and knows everything - would you believe me? Would you immediately assert that all of my edits are completely accurate and true given just that information? Of course you wouldn't. Sources and references must be able to be reviewed, scrutinized, and verified for authenticity and accuracy - they must meet the requirements listed on this guideline page. What you describe is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review these policies and guidelines and do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions - just message me here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Naxxar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)- Access to edit your user talk page during your block is so you can discuss the block or request an unblock only, and not for other purposes. Talk page access will be revoked if you make inappropriate edits to it and that don't involve the matters described. I hate being the bad guy here, but you cannot edit war like that, and you cannot disrupt Wikipedia to make a point... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Block evasion
[edit]Because of your recent attempt to evade your block by creating and using another account (Naxxar Historian), you have violated Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy. Your block is now indefinite. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Mark Peres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is my experience of wikipedia, so far.
I have created an account with the name Mark Peres, but my name is actually Mark Camilleri. It seemed that Mark Camilleri was already in use, so I opted to use Mark Peres instead which is an old moniker I use for online accounts.
I have edited the part of Naxxar's page on the etymology of the name. The previous part of the page was referenced by what seems to be a bot from an unreliable and non-scientific website which does not source its information. Instead, I replaced wiki's reference for a reference by Godfrey Wettinger, from his book on the etymology of Maltese place-names.
Different editors of wikipedia deleted my change and reverted to the old one. I have edited back my change since my reference is actually correct. May I also add that Godfrey Wettinger's reference is as of now, the only scientific case for the etymology of the name.
Upon editing back my change, I was banned for one day on the ground that I am involved in an edit war.
Soon after I was blocked indefinitely by a wiki bot on the grounds that I had created a new account called Naxxar Historian. This is not true and I wouldn't do such childish things, but I don't know how the wiki editors came to the conclusion that I opened a new account.
This is my first experience with wikipedia and it helped me understand further more why a lot of the information is unreliable. Bots seem to be gathering information from online websites which is then edited by wikipedia editors to fit a house style. However, there is a very limited way in which lay-users can contest the information with proven and reliable sources.
Mark Camilleri
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
Mark Peres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I assume that I have followed standard and also wikipedia referencing rules since I did actually provide the reference and my edit and reference was not contested on scientific grounds. I may also show copies of the page of the reference if that is what the editor means. I think it is important that actual specialists and scientists contribute to the creation of information which is being provided to the public. Of course, I decline the accusation that I am opening multiple accounts and I would be happy to offer my accreditation, and papers, ID and IP address.
Decline reason:
So sorry. I cannot unblock you at this time. TBH, we don't care about your accreditation, etc. The problem appears to be edit warring. You need to discuss sourcing and content when reverted. If you feel you have a source better than that which has been used, you should say why in the discussion. Oshwah explained it very nicely above. Frankly, your arrogant, dismissive, insulting attitude is not conducive with a collaborative work environment. Perhaps you are not a good fit for the largest free content encyclopedia on earth. The evidence of WP:sock puppetry is quite compelling. That, if proven, will destroy any trust the community would have had. As to your IP, it will be known very shortly once a WP:check user has examined your edits and those of the apparent socks. Once that issue is resolved, we can consider the other problems-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
Mark Peres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your reply and I would appreciate if it is technically confirmed that I did not do any multiple accounts. Also, may I reiterate that my edit was changed on the grounds that it is vandalism apriori and not on the merits of the content and the reference provided, but I can also explain once again why and how did I provide the particular reference. The reference was from the only etymological dictionary of place-names available, published recently by a major historian. I may also send a copy of the page of the reference for verification. I think an encyclopedia where specialists in respective fields can contribute scientific data can be a good idea, and I am glad I was involved in this experience, however it would be too tiring and expensive in terms of time, to be involved in such technical problems every time one would make a contribution. For this reason I would not contribute to wikipedia.
Decline reason:
Since your unblock request indicates that you no longer wish to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no reason to lift the block (which only prevents editing; you are still able to read Wikipedia freely). Yunshui 雲水 22:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
Mark Peres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is ok if you don't want to unblock me at this stage, but I would appreciate that it is confirmed that I was not the person to create multiple accounts as was stated above. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
A Checkuser investigation found no technical link between your account and the others listed in the sockpuppet investigation. However, CU cannot prove a negative; the most I can say is that your account does not appear to be using the same IP or device as the other accounts used. Yunshui 雲水 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Mark Peres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for clarifying this. However my page still says that I have been blocked because I created multiple accounts including Naxxar Historian. Since this is an untrue statement, I would appreciate that if my block now is lifted so may name is cleared and this accusation is erased. Thank you again.
Decline reason:
You don't indicate what you want to do if unblocked, and have previously stated that you don't wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Until you indicate that you do want to contribute, there is no need to unblock you. I also note Yunshui's statement below. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
To be absolutely clear, I am in no way saying that the claim of multiple account abuse is untrue - I am not able to say that, since CU cannot prove a negative. All I (or any other checkuser) can confirm is that the edits made from this account were made from a different IP and device to those made by (almost all of) the other listed accounts. Yunshui 雲水 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Mark Peres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I hereby ask Wikipedia editors to lift my indefinite block and completely reject the false accusation by editor named ~Oshwah~ that I have created multiple accounts. I am willing to edit once again and contribute to Wikipedia according to its regulations. Please note that I have an excellent track-record in my home-country and never have I been accused of slanderous accusations such as made here that I would deceive people by creating fake accounts. I find the accusations very worrying to my reputation and I hereby ask to have them removed and my unblock lifted. I am willing to edit and contribute to Wikipedia and thank you again.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
(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.