User talk:Piano410

Welcome!

Hello, Piano410, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

1) This paper [1] does not mention lead that I see 2) Why add this content to the middle of a sentence on no symptoms? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sequoia dakotensis without 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; I restored the removed content. 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! KJ^{«Click Here»} 02:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Khalifa copyright problem

Some of the material you included in the above article was copied from http://academic.csuohio.edu/duffy_s/CVE_601_Struct_1.pdf, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Union Square (Seattle), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LEED. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shannon & Wilson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richland, Bloomberg and Portland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (2016), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sounder Bruce 03:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to adhere to the standards on capitalization (especially in references), and to add dates to references (in the standard U.S. format for U.S. topics; follow the existing standard as well). Sounder Bruce 04:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Piano410! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:23, Monday, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

My sack of puppets

@Murph9000: Hi, I see you have placed someone on here. Please let them know that the account is indeed under my control, & make sure its handled appropriately like all the other ones. You don't need to waste a Checkuser's time & request an investigation this time around, since I doubt it will succeed anyway. By the way, how did you like the name Al Legorhythm? If I do plan on coming back & request an unblock (perhaps in the next few months or even a year or so, so keep your eyes peeled), I would prefer using that account instead of this one. Oh & if would excuse me, I must find a way to force myself away from Wikipedia for now which had been quite unsuccessful for the past few days, since this past week had been particularly busy for me. I'm sure this week had been busy for you too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubeSat4U (talk • contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks for confirming that, coming completely clean is the only way to eventually get back onto Wikipedia without living under a permanent cloud of impending block. The name, yeah, it was clever. Creating a new account while blocked, not so clever. The new account hurts your future block appeal, but coming clean now helps it.

To properly close this, it would probably be best if you could post a message confirming this using Al Legorhythm (talk · contribs), so that all doubt is removed. Then stop using that account, and stop editing Wikipedia in any way until you successfully appeal one of the blocks. The only permitted activity while blocked is a low volume of talk on your user talk page directly related to your block and future appeal, but absolutely don't do anything on your talk that could be seen to be disruptive or a waste of time for admins. So, be careful, as admins have relatively limited patience with talk on blocked accounts. Ask them respectful, relevant, and necessary questions once, accept their answers, then silently wait until it's an appropriate time to appeal the block.

The block applies to you, the person. Coming clean and then completely stopping all editing is a critical part towards eventual unblocking. That includes editing as an IP user. Before requesting an unblock, please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks carefully. In your case, I suspect that you need to wait at least 6 months (with no recidivism), then take the Wikipedia:Standard offer, but one of the admins will likely confirm if that's the appropriate route, and how long would be appropriate to wait before requesting an unblock.

@Yunshui and Vanjagenije: PING, FYI.

Murph9000 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you guys would have to close the investigations yourselves, since the auto-block prevented me from doing so. I did the best what I could...for now... CubeSats 4U 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice on Al's talk page. Don't worry about closing the case, I've added notes to it, and it's best to leave closing to the SPI-admins. The notes ensure that your honesty is noted there (thanks), and should help minimise their time. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Thanks for the informative message. ~~I haven't used this account for very long,~~ Its been almost 6 months since I have used this account. so I thought that ~~the IP address~~ my password was lost. However, since I have logged in to this account successfully, I would like to request a CheckUser to confirm that I, Piano410 was the one who used that IP Address. If this can be done, I would very much appreciate your patience. Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon. As soon as I received the results, I would be happy to wait patiently for another 1-5 years or any quantifiable/definite value that both of us can hopefully agree on through consensus.

~~==Unblock request== {unblock | reason=~~

@Yunshui: You're the epitome of a true genius & a master Wikipedian! However, I would like to apologize for my previous conduct in Imaginary Trolling. I probably shouldn't have fooled a CheckUser in the 1st place & requested your advice. However, I couldn't help but discover something strange & disturbing happening to both Wikipedia & The Age of Empires Wiki while I'm gone & absent here. I believe that reverting back to the status quo seems to be best. Consequently, I should probably rewrite my block lift request to avoid further disruption. However, this does not mean that Piano410 should be blocked, since it is up to us as a community to rectify this problem as a whole, to ensure that such a thing were to never happen again. Of great importance is that I want to rectify this problem immediately, since it is my responsibility as a former Bureaucrat of Age of Empires wiki to regain the trust of the entire community. However, before doing so, I would like to take a short break from contributing for a while because my parents are complaining that I have not yet prepared for graduate school. I need time off to prepare for a GRE entrance exam, which is a requirement for some graduate schools. Most importantly, my parents are especially angry at my laziness being on the computer all day, since I still have yet to find myself a sustainable career. I come from an Asian background, so you guys probably get an idea of the strange situation I'm currently in which is neither good or bad. You can probably tell that I have been pretty mad & annoyed...but forget about madness. Lets just focus on the REAL problem.
Should the Oversighter on Wikipedia be demoted?
[edit]
No
[edit]
For example, the unblock request for both Piano410 & CubeSat4U had been removed suspiciously by an Oversighter. While I agree that censorship is reasonable under most circumstances, such removal of material WITHOUT horizontal slashes ~~like this~~ is utterly unacceptable. There are also no concrete evidence of a copyright violation in both of these messages I have sent you, since none of these have been crafted by any corporation or any outside entity as both Wikia & Wikipedia have a Free Use License, in which information copied from both sites can be copied but credit must be given. Although it can be argued that I should've provided a citation, such a policy currently doesn't exist in the Age of Empires wiki. Furthermore, any information posted onto both Wikipedia & Wikia are under free license, so anyone can use it for free as long as credit is given. This means that any troll or vandal can use my block as an example on how to redeem their editing privileges! I was able realize that such a feat can be pretty remarkable, even someone as insignificant as I am. As the Age of Empires Wiki is a sub-branch of Wikia & oversaw by their staff, such censorship is unreasonable in my opinion. Although it is likely that the Oversighter made an error on their behalf, under which the user may be susceptible to demotion, I can expect the user to have tremendous amount of experience under their belt, likely having censored countless number of copyright violations during their tenure. It is for this reason that I'm taking a Neutral position on behalf of the Oversighter, in regards to this decision & whoever censored my unblock request shouldn't be demoted for this reason.

Another reason why my unblock request was removed, was likely because I have overlooked the importance of verifiability as a former Bureaucrat of the Age of Empires Wiki. I failed to give credit to the Anon editor who was the one crafted my unblock request. However, anything published in both Wikia & Wikipedia are free as long as I give credit to the creator of the unblock request, which happened be me as an Anon user. Having confirmed that the Anon editor is me by posting this message, I should have access to the unblock request immediately. Furthermore, there are no copyright violations on both unblock requests. This is likely an error on behalf of the Oversighter who made that decision. Although this policy currently does not exist at the Age of Empires wiki, if I were to remain Bureaucrat, I would try my best to rectify this problem immediately by collaborating with the Oversighter who likely had made a mistake as well when removing the unblock request. Again, whoever made the decision should keep their rights. It is for this reason that I'm currently taking a Neutral position on behalf of the Oversighter. Both Me & the Oversighter have made their own mistakes on their behalf. Despite making these mistakes, I'm certain that both of us can improve as editors, & I hope we can collaborate together on how to improve both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires Wiki, with myself as Bureaucrat & an unknown Oversighter on both wikis. Since I have not made any personal attacks against the Oversighter, & remained patient during this discussion, it is for this reason that I'm currently taking a Neutral position towards my demotion or promotion. Most importantly, community consensus must be reached in order to promote or demote someone, so neither myself as Bureaucrat or the Oversighter who made the decision should be changed in Wikipedia or the Age of Empires Wiki in this situation, despite both of us making mistakes on their behalf across different encyclopedias. Since I pledge to improve as an editor on both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires, I hope to work with the Oversighter on how to best apply the Wikipedia policy on to the Age of Empires Wiki in the near future. Since I pledge to rectify this situation as a former Bureaucrat of the Age of Empires wiki, I believe that my rights at the Age of Empires wiki should NOT be changed in this particular situation.
Should the CheckUser be demoted?
[edit]
No
[edit]
Although it is likely that the CheckUser made some errors on their behalf with myself, the CheckUser was only doing their job to determine whether or not I have ABUSIVELY used multiple accounts. Although I'm certain that both of us have made some flaws in regards to application of different procedures or protocols, I have no significant grudge against the CheckUser, since whoever checked my account was simply doing their job. However, there are important points I would like to make:
I have, inadvertently, saved a file containing an unblock request for both CubeSat4U & Piano410. Before diving deep into the details, I would like to comment that the job of the CheckUser was there to simply to prove that I have used accounts abusively, & determine whether or not there was long term abuse for both accounts. There was no significant issue for both accounts I have used in the past since the evidence for using both accounts abusively was nonexistent, only until know. However, breaching my computer, searching for my most atrocious & important files is considered unacceptable per the privacy policy of the CheckUser. Despite making this mistake, someone inadvertently removed the CheckUser rights of @Yunshui. Although it is likely that the Bureaucrat made that decision simply to do their job, I want to request CheckUser rights back to @Yunshui. It is for this reason that I SUPPORT @Yunshui's promotion to CheckUser rights. Most importantly, both of us are interested in conducting Sockpuppet Investigations for Wikipedia in the near future. Having learned much from @Yunshui's performance, activity & willingness to help me redeem myself implies that both of are interested in collaborating together. Although these are good qualities for a CheckUser to have, these are also good qualities that are certainly expected for an administrator working for Wikipedia.

This may be an opinion, but it might be best for all CheckUsers such as @Yunshui to only use the tool on Wikipedia unless there is a severe case of sockpuppetry & shouldn't be used to spy on other accounts inappropriately on other encyclopedias. That would count as abusing the CheckUser ability. Whoever got affected by this spying should have all rights & editing privileges back. Furthermore, if a Sockpuppet Investigation is needed, there Must be evidence for that violation.
This can be done by using the Duck Test. Despite some possible inaccuracies & possible loopholes, this test proved to be extremely reliable on accounts that are clearly dedicated to trolling. I find this strategy to be most effective & efficient against trolls or vandals who are willing to create numerous accounts. The vast majority of these 100% trolling/vandalizing accounts have similar names. Despite the test being seemingly random, there is a distinct pattern that can be analyzed by simply examining the text & characters inside the username of someone's account. This is probably the result of a technique known as random sampling or random analysis. I'm not familiar with the technical & scientific details about the CheckUser ability, so this is just pure speculation. Even if someone doesn't know what a CheckUser is or what their purpose is, they can start to get an idea here. I myself, have conducted this test on several occasions, & it worked remarkably well to my surprise. Just using that test singlehandedly wiped out all accounts that are 100% hellbent on trolling & vandalism, as indicated in the Candy Crush wiki.

I have heard of the elephant test, which could theoretically be used, but it is less useful, since I find that test to be more focused on jumping into to conclusions rather than an actual test to be used on trolls or vandals. I think this is what happened back to the folks at the Age of Empires wiki & Wikipedia, where I have found folks like UnofficialGameExpert78 & Casliber who seemed to have disappeared without a trace. It is for this reason that I would like to delete my suggested spider test where this would allow the CheckUser to essentially jumping into conclusions about which sockpuppeting troll/vandal was which. This can lead to VERY dangerous consequences, as mentioned beforehand since it could result in the CheckUser getting demoted. This could result in a terrifying situation where the CheckUser can just wreak havoc & block everyone at will, including Bureaucrats for example. There is a possibility, that is this reason of the overpowerful CheckUser ability where anyone could get blocked without evidence. Understanding the CheckUser tool & how powerful it can be should be made absolutely mandatory for all good faith contributors in order to minimize collateral damage which is something I'm interested in, but of course I don't really have much time for that.
Having analyzed the situation at hand, it is in my opinion that I Piano410 should NOT be considered as an abusing sockmaster or sockpuppet for the purpose of destroying Wikipedia or the Age of Empires wiki but rather someone who could contribute to great effect across both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires wiki. It is for this reason that I should grant another try in rewriting my Block Lift Request. As a result, Piano410 should NOT be blocked & should attempt to rewrite the block lift on behalf of the alternative account CubeSat4U. Note that this hypothetical block lift, is just a ticket to prove why I consider myself to be a generally good faith contributor, so thank you very much for considering my analysis of the situation for Wikipedia & the Age of Empires wiki. Please don't rush yourselves when evaluating my position. For those of you who are quick to jump into conclusions, I figure this would certainly be an interesting read. For some reason, I would like to request the status quo to be imposed prior to my proposed block lift, since I have witnessed counterproductive activity happening to both Age of Empires wiki & Wikipedia. If there are any questions why I should rewrite my block lift appeal, I would happy to answer your following questions. Thanks all, for your tremendous patience in reading this seemingly lengthy proposal. And of course, happy editing!
Pianos 4U 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) }} [reply]
November 2017
[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{Unblock|reason= Thanks for the warning, or notice. I will place the Template:Doppelganger on TesLiszt, CubeSat4U & Al Legorhythm. ~~However, if I have plans to use CubeSat4U as a bot account, does this template still apply, or do I just use the bot template? Keep in mind that I'm just talking about the future, not right now.~~ Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! }}
Unblock request
[edit]

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).
Piano410 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Yunshui: You're the epitome of a true genius & a master Wikipedian! However, I would like to apologize for my previous conduct in Imaginary Trolling. I probably shouldn't have fooled a CheckUser in the 1st place & requested your advice. However, I couldn't help but discover something strange & disturbing happening to both Wikipedia & The Age of Empires Wiki while I'm gone & absent here. I believe that reverting back to the status quo seems to be best. Consequently, I should probably rewrite my block lift request to avoid further disruption. However, this does not mean that Piano410 should be blocked, since it is up to us as a community to rectify this problem as a whole, to ensure that such a thing were to never happen again. Of great importance is that I want to rectify this problem immediately, since it is my responsibility as a former Bureaucrat of Age of Empires wiki to regain the trust of the entire community. However, before doing so, I would like to take a short break from contributing for a while because my parents are complaining that I have not yet prepared for graduate school. I need time off to prepare for a GRE entrance exam, which is a requirement for some graduate schools. Most importantly, my parents are especially angry at my laziness being on the computer all day, since I still have yet to find myself a sustainable career. I come from an Asian background, so you guys probably get an idea of the strange situation I'm currently in which is neither good or bad. You can probably tell that I have been pretty mad & annoyed...but forget about madness. Lets just focus on the REAL problem.

Should the Oversighter on Wikipedia be demoted?

No

For example, the unblock request for both Piano410 & CubeSat4U had been removed suspiciously by an Oversighter. While I agree that censorship is reasonable under most circumstances, such removal of material WITHOUT horizontal slashes ~~like this~~ is utterly unacceptable. There are also no concrete evidence of a copyright violation in both of these messages I have sent you, since none of these have been crafted by any corporation or any outside entity as both Wikia & Wikipedia have a Free Use License, in which information copied from both sites can be copied but credit must be given. Although it can be argued that I should've provided a citation, such a policy currently doesn't exist in the Age of Empires wiki. Furthermore, any information posted onto both Wikipedia & Wikia are under free license, so anyone can use it for free as long as credit is given. This means that any troll or vandal can use my block as an example on how to redeem their editing privileges! I was able realize that such a feat can be pretty remarkable, even someone as insignificant as I am. As the Age of Empires Wiki is a sub-branch of Wikia & oversaw by their staff, such censorship is unreasonable in my opinion. Although it is likely that the Oversighter made an error on their behalf, under which the user may be susceptible to demotion, I can expect the user to have tremendous amount of experience under their belt, likely having censored countless number of copyright violations during their tenure. It is for this reason that I'm taking a Neutral position on behalf of the Oversighter, in regards to this decision & whoever censored my unblock request shouldn't be demoted for this reason.

Another reason why my unblock request was removed, was likely because I have overlooked the importance of verifiability as a former Bureaucrat of the Age of Empires Wiki. I failed to give credit to the Anon editor who was the one crafted my unblock request. However, anything published in both Wikia & Wikipedia are free as long as I give credit to the creator of the unblock request, which happened be me as an Anon user. Having confirmed that the Anon editor is me by posting this message, I should have access to the unblock request immediately. Furthermore, there are no copyright violations on both unblock requests. This is likely an error on behalf of the Oversighter who made that decision. Although this policy currently does not exist at the Age of Empires wiki, if I were to remain Bureaucrat, I would try my best to rectify this problem immediately by collaborating with the Oversighter who likely had made a mistake as well when removing the unblock request. Again, whoever made the decision should keep their rights. It is for this reason that I'm currently taking a Neutral position on behalf of the Oversighter. Both Me & the Oversighter have made their own mistakes on their behalf. Despite making these mistakes, I'm certain that both of us can improve as editors, & I hope we can collaborate together on how to improve both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires Wiki, with myself as Bureaucrat & an unknown Oversighter on both wikis. Since I have not made any personal attacks against the Oversighter, & remained patient during this discussion, it is for this reason that I'm currently taking a Neutral position towards my demotion or promotion. Most importantly, community consensus must be reached in order to promote or demote someone, so neither myself as Bureaucrat or the Oversighter who made the decision should be changed in Wikipedia or the Age of Empires Wiki in this situation, despite both of us making mistakes on their behalf across different encyclopedias. Since I pledge to improve as an editor on both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires, I hope to work with the Oversighter on how to best apply the Wikipedia policy on to the Age of Empires Wiki in the near future. Since I pledge to rectify this situation as a former Bureaucrat of the Age of Empires wiki, I believe that my rights at the Age of Empires wiki should NOT be changed in this particular situation.

Should the CheckUser be demoted?

No

Although it is likely that the CheckUser made some errors on their behalf with myself, the CheckUser was only doing their job to determine whether or not I have ABUSIVELY used multiple accounts. Although I'm certain that both of us have made some flaws in regards to application of different procedures or protocols, I have no significant grudge against the CheckUser, since whoever checked my account was simply doing their job. However, there are important points I would like to make:
I have, inadvertently, saved a file containing an unblock request for both CubeSat4U & Piano410. Before diving deep into the details, I would like to comment that the job of the CheckUser was there to simply to prove that I have used accounts abusively, & determine whether or not there was long term abuse for both accounts. There was no significant issue for both accounts I have used in the past since the evidence for using both accounts abusively was nonexistent, only until know. However, breaching my computer, searching for my most atrocious & important files is considered unacceptable per the privacy policy of the CheckUser. Despite making this mistake, someone inadvertently removed the CheckUser rights of @Yunshui. Although it is likely that the Bureaucrat made that decision simply to do their job, I want to request CheckUser rights back to @Yunshui. It is for this reason that I SUPPORT @Yunshui's promotion to CheckUser rights. Most importantly, both of us are interested in conducting Sockpuppet Investigations for Wikipedia in the near future. Having learned much from @Yunshui's performance, activity & willingness to help me redeem myself implies that both of are interested in collaborating together. Although these are good qualities for a CheckUser to have, these are also good qualities that are certainly expected for an administrator working for Wikipedia.

This may be an opinion, but it might be best for all CheckUsers such as @Yunshui to only use the tool on Wikipedia unless there is a severe case of sockpuppetry & shouldn't be used to spy on other accounts inappropriately on other encyclopedias. That would count as abusing the CheckUser ability. Whoever got affected by this spying should have all rights & editing privileges back. Furthermore, if a Sockpuppet Investigation is needed, there Must be evidence for that violation.
This can be done by using the Duck Test. Despite some possible inaccuracies & possible loopholes, this test proved to be extremely reliable on accounts that are clearly dedicated to trolling. I find this strategy to be most effective & efficient against trolls or vandals who are willing to create numerous accounts. The vast majority of these 100% trolling/vandalizing accounts have similar names. Despite the test being seemingly random, there is a distinct pattern that can be analyzed by simply examining the text & characters inside the username of someone's account. This is probably the result of a technique known as random sampling or random analysis. I'm not familiar with the technical & scientific details about the CheckUser ability, so this is just pure speculation. Even if someone doesn't know what a CheckUser is or what their purpose is, they can start to get an idea here. I myself, have conducted this test on several occasions, & it worked remarkably well to my surprise. Just using that test singlehandedly wiped out all accounts that are 100% hellbent on trolling & vandalism, as indicated in the Candy Crush wiki.

I have heard of the elephant test, which could theoretically be used, but it is less useful, since I find that test to be more focused on jumping into to conclusions rather than an actual test to be used on trolls or vandals. I think this is what happened back to the folks at the Age of Empires wiki & Wikipedia, where I have found folks like UnofficialGameExpert78 & Casliber who seemed to have disappeared without a trace. It is for this reason that I would like to delete my suggested spider test where this would allow the CheckUser to essentially jumping into conclusions about which sockpuppeting troll/vandal was which. This can lead to VERY dangerous consequences, as mentioned beforehand since it could result in the CheckUser getting demoted. This could result in a terrifying situation where the CheckUser can just wreak havoc & block everyone at will, including Bureaucrats for example. There is a possibility, that is this reason of the overpowerful CheckUser ability where anyone could get blocked without evidence. Understanding the CheckUser tool & how powerful it can be should be made absolutely mandatory for all good faith contributors in order to minimize collateral damage which is something I'm interested in, but of course I don't really have much time for that.

Having analyzed the situation at hand, it is in my opinion that I Piano410 should NOT be considered as an abusing sockmaster or sockpuppet for the purpose of destroying Wikipedia or the Age of Empires wiki but rather someone who could contribute to great effect across both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires wiki. It is for this reason that I should grant another try in rewriting my Block Lift Request. As a result, Piano410 should NOT be blocked & should attempt to rewrite the block lift on behalf of the alternative account CubeSat4U. Note that this hypothetical block lift, is just a ticket to prove why I consider myself to be a generally good faith contributor, so thank you very much for considering my analysis of the situation for Wikipedia & the Age of Empires wiki. Please don't rush yourselves when evaluating my position. For those of you who are quick to jump into conclusions, I figure this would certainly be an interesting read. For some reason, I would like to request the status quo to be imposed prior to my proposed block lift, since I have witnessed counterproductive activity happening to both Age of Empires wiki & Wikipedia. If there are any questions why I should rewrite my block lift appeal, I would happy to answer your following questions. Thanks all, for your tremendous patience in reading this seemingly lengthy proposal. And of course, happy editing!
Pianos 4U 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No volunteer administrator is going to waste their time reading this. Please read our guide to appealing blocks and, should you choose, make an unblock request addressing only your own behavior. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:38, 9 November 2017 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Note
[edit]
In this diff I am removing a bunch of content that was pasted here from User talk:CubeSat4U by Piano410 in this diff, and then messed with a bit in this 2 diff series. It included the block notice given to CubeSat4U's in May 2017 and overall made no sense to anybody reading this page trying to understand what has happened with this account. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this is X~Calibur95 from Age of Empires wiki, now I understand why you retired and quit editing on fandom. An interesting fiasco...Proudpakistani11 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]