User talk:Noodle90
Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
| |||||||
You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions. | |||||||
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
March 2013
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC) |
Checkuser has identified you as a sock of indefinitely blocked editor User:Noodleki. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Noodle90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello. I am Noodleki's brother and he has asked me to post the material on my account as a favour. The Wikipedia:Blocking Policy says that Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. I believe the material is verifiable and productive and I have made sure that his material didn't have the same problems that led to his ban. You can check that this is the case. I think that the material is productive, although, distressingly for him, another user has indiscriminately reverted all his hard work despite This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor. A lot of work to produce useful and sourced material for the good of wikipedia has just been removed. Surely, if the content is good then it can stay - as mentioned in the guidelines. In fact, User talk:Andy Dingley#Edits by Noodleki sockpuppets was kind enough to revert it and verify that there were no violations in one particular instance. I'm sure you can imagine that having your hard work, beneficial to the site, just thrown in your face is very upsetting. At any rate, he is making sure not to commit the same violations that led to his ban, so my proxy editing wouldn't be neccessary if his ban was reviewed. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Noodle90 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Proxy editing for your WP:BROTHER doesn't seem like a good way to stay in good graces here, now does it? --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:15, 11 March 2013 (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.
Noodle90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So you're accusing me of lying. Do you think I would be so stupid as to blame it on my brother if it wasn't actually true? My brother has kindly put on this material (which is verifiable and productive) for me, which is allowed by the guidelines as mentioned above. Now, unless you can prove that I'm lying, how can you block me? I'm finding the outright hostility that has been directed at me from everyone on here since I started overwhelming. Am I such a bad person? I'm just trying to help improve Wikipedia. Why don't you go through my edits, see if they violate anything and decide if they are productive. Again at the very least why do all the changes I made get reverted? The guidelines specifically say that doesn't have to be done, if they are useful edits. Why are people on here so willing to destroy other people's hard work? Try and find some humanity.Noodle90 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I would not presume to suggest that another admin belives that you are lying; that would be most unreasonable. But I believe that you are. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:43, 11 March 2013 (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.
Noodle90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well, that's very charitable of you. Can you at least address my point about the reverts? Just think, and try to have some compassion. Imagine you spent a long time making useful contributions to wikipedia, that were sourced, informative and so on, and all of that was removed despite the guidelines saying that it doesn't need to be. How would you feel? Even if you all hate me for wanting to help, why don't you keep the content for the sake of wikipedia? Again, could you have some compassion. You are dealing with a human being here. Noodle90 (talk) 9:51 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)
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. Yunshui 雲水 08:46, 12 March 2013 (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.
Copyright violations
[edit]I note that when you edited Herbicide, you copied and pasted text from another Wikipedia article (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) without attribution. In the unlikely event that you really are someone other than User:Noodleki, please be advised that this constitutes a copyright violation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributors. When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. As you're currently blocked, I've provided the attribution for you in this case. However, as you've admitted to editing on behalf of a user who was a persistent copyright violator, most of your other edits since his block have been reverted—we don't want to waste our time carefully checking them all. A few contributions which could not be reverted automatically due to intervening edits by other users have been listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki for further investigation.
If you are ever unblocked I advise you not to post any more material on behalf of User:Noodleki—at least not without first carefully checking to make sure it doesn't copy material which is not freely licensed, and that any freely licensed material which is copied is attributed in accordance with that licence. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for further information. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)