User talk:Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134

January 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 January 2024 (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).

Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

not sure what lead to this block? can someone explain? Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only edit you have made to Wikipedia before being blocked was to ask a question of a particular user that seems to have nothing to do with this project- what we defines as being not here to contribute to building this encyclopedia. If you have contributions you wish to make to this encyclopedia, please tell what those are in a new request, I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2024 (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).

Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes I want to contribute to wikipedia cars section. cars are of great interest to me. The post on the users page was just asking a question about a group of people who are allegedly on wikipedia to defame certain individuals and was interested in knowing more details. that user was allegedly part of that group. I didn't expect that user to be a snowflake and tell on me. I also didn't expect to be reprimanded this harshly for asking a polite queestion. going forward I'll be more considerate of other people's feelings. this actually reinforces those allegations that certain people are engaging in certain activities and are fiercly protected by administrators.Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 12:50 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2024 (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).

Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes I want to contribute to wikipedia cars section. cars are of great interest to me. The post on the users page was just asking a question about a group of people who are allegedly on wikipedia to defame certain individuals and was interested in knowing more details. that user was allegedly part of that group. I didn't expect that user to be a snowflake and tell on me. I also didn't expect to be reprimanded this harshly for asking a polite queestion. going forward I'll be more considerate of other people's feelings. this actually reinforces those allegations that certain people are engaging in certain activities and are fiercly protected by administrators.Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. Especially when they are exact copies of an already declined request. Oh also this is now a checkuser block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:17, 29 January 2024 (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.

Unblock discussion

I'm skeptical. What connection or interest do you have about defamation or the particular individuals? Snowflake, eh. Yeah, I'll leave this for someone else for now, but I don't think you are here to build the encyclopedia, It was not a polite question. And personal attacks in an unblock request indicate you are WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with this project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.could you explain why you think my post was a personal attack!! strange.

2.well it took literally just 3 minutes for my post to be deleted by an administrator. I don't think that's a coincidence. Maybe some "admins" are overprotective of some "editors"? that just reinforces my argument.

3.as for my interest in combating defamation. why is that a strange thing for you? everyone should be interested in that. Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I didn't expect that user to have multiple bodyguards or I wouldn't have posted that. Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a snowflake is a personal attack. No, most people aren't generally interested in "combating defamation" in general, they have some sort of personal connection. Your attitude here is showing that you aren't interested in particpating here collaboratively. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely interested in participating collaboratively. I just don't think that banning me is "collaboration". Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well calling someone a snowflake wasn't why I was banned was it? Regardless I sure would like to know what part of my initial question was so offensive that led to my indefinite instant ban! Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've seen much worse words than "snowflake" on wikipedia and nobody was banned. Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't banned, you are blocked. There is a difference. If you want to identify personal attacks that you observe, we can address them- but that's neither her nor there. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok sure "blocked". I still didn't get an answer on what caused it. Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that to you already. If you are now here to help us build this encyclopedia, you will need to stop making personal attacks, and clearly and completely answer the points requested by Deepfriedokra. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure this was my post: Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== Hey fan of Mick and proud member of Guerrila Semi skeptics ==

care to respond Mick fan?

https://twitter.com/ShanDScott/status/1751800460342911319 Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can someone point out the part were I was offensive or rude or anything? then I can address it. Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was offensive or rude. But it doesn't add to this project. This is now a checkuser block so nothing more needs to be said here. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok if a post is not offensive but it's basically benign, the user posting it is blocked indef? that's strange policy. isn't that a bit extreme? Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2024 (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).

Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm still not being told what was wrong with my initial post that led to my block. is this normal to block someone indef with no reason given? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Psudo-skeptic-catcher-134 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Clearly not a new user, clearly acting in bad faith. Yamla (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2024 (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.

January 2024

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.

Doug Weller talk 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have only added the template, the block was done by jpgordon and I’ve added the template to make it clear to the editor how they can appeal, even though I think it will be a waste of time. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]