Jump to content

User talk:RandomGuy2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, RandomGuy2018 and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Nazi Germany

[edit]

Please stop adding Robert Ley to the infobox for this article. Ley was a significant figure in Nazi Germany, but not so significant that he deserves to be listed as a major part of the government or the party: many others were much more powerful than he was, including Bormann, Goebbels, Goring, Himmler, and Speer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're new here so I'm going to assume good faith that yopu don;t understand the rules. Please read WP:EW and WP:BRD for how to properly deal with content disputes. It is not allowed to simply revert, you must discuss your reasoning on the article talk page. I am confident that if you do, the editors there will back up my contention that Robert Ley is not a significant enough figure to be included in the infobox for Nazi Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for you, I've started a discussion here where you can make your views known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lost Kings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hancock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudolph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

[edit]

I've blocked this account because you've had an account before that was indefinitely blocked (User:Smart Aleck), and you continue to make sockpuppets. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, you have to not violate this policy, and appeal this on the talk page of the original account. Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked -- this block appears to have been an error. Sorry about that! The administrator incident noticeboard thread from which this block request originated is here (section #CoolRichWiseGuy, near the end). Antandrus (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Black (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Albert (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to King Albert
Robert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to National Party

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! RandomGuy2018, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, RandomGuy2018. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp fiction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic name, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bertram and Herbert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fame (element) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fame (element) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fame (element) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bert (name), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elbert, Lambert and Engelbert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic name, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alaric, Gotthard and Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Germanic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wulfric
Henry (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Henryk

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Germanic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Egil
Greek name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Germanic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Egil
Yauheni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Henry

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lunacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of rulers named Robert

[edit]

Hello, RandomGuy2018. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of rulers named Robert".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robinson, Roberts and Robertson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Theodoric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Dieter, Tudur and Dedrick
Laurentius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lorenz
Lawrence (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lorenz
Robert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rocketry

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ritter von Greim

[edit]

Stop adding him to every possible infobox, aside from at Kursk, he has no significance, especially not along such high level leaders in such "large scale" infoboxes. --Havsjö (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok, you win. Just dont start an edit war, please. I remember the one about WWI infobox. Also, please, dont talk so agressively. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see this as "win" vs "loose". But why put him specifically, no matter how small his involvement or command, along side the absolute top dogs in absolutely every battle he was even tangentially involved in? --Havsjö (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added him originally to battles during which he commanded divisions. For example Eastern and Western Fronts, Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa, The Blitz, Kanalkampf. What is about these edits is that moderators accepted them. They didnt remove the commanders and I was also thanked about most of these edits [except Battle of Britain]. They were also added to the russian articles [Russian wikipedia has the strictest rules. If you add something there it gets verified by moderators and only then can be kept. If they think its insignificant they immediately remove it]. All of these edits were accepted by moderators [I also noticed some another user saying this when adding General von Greim back]. So that is why. I still think he should be kept, mainly because moderators and people who have been editors on this site for years have approved of these edits. They would have immediatley removed them if they disagreed. All I hope for is that this doesnt result in an edit war. I wanna peacefully ask for that. Thanks for taking your time to read this.--RandomGuy2018 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same person as BritishVampire? You have made the exact same edits and make the exact same arguments with "accepted by moderators" (which is not needed to make edits) and referring how articles look on russian wikipedia. These two things I have never seen anyone refer to or do before the edits around this --Havsjö (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, im not. But I did notice that this person make the same edits as me. I in the start saw how he referred to the moderators in Russian wikipedia. So I thought that im not the only person who knows this thing with moderators on Russian wikipedia. Thats how Russian wikipedia works, you cant have your edit published before moderators dont accept them. If its all so insignificant, moderators wouldnt accept the edits. And as I see, im not the only one who knows this. Anyway, I checked russian wikipedia, but found no edits by him in there. I only saw his page stating that he himself is russian, so I suppose he saw that all there. I hope this clears it up. Thanks --RandomGuy2018 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yea, its all good --Havsjö (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! So we can conclude this discussion now? --RandomGuy2018 (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STOP your edit warring by adding non-notable commanders !! Infobox lists in these broad articles are typically only for higher leadership (Army and higher, corps in special cases) but not for division commanders. --Denniss (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have stopped edit warring. We peacefully and kindly settled everything so everything can stay as it is right now, and we wont edit war anymore. I promise! Im sorry this edit war happened and other people, including you, had to become a part of it. Everything is alright, everything in these infoboxes can now stay as it is and there will not be any more edit warring, we wont do that anymore. Again, im very sorry and have a good day / evening! Thanks! --RandomGuy2018 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed think this discussion was over, but you have kept adding him to large-scale campaign infoboxes and such, despite him only holding minor commands etc. Why? --Havsjö (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we peacefully settled everything. I added him and some others in battles where they actually commanded. I would never simply add something just for the sake of adding it, and I would never add something I didnt think belongs in there. I even made sure that it does belong in there, as I already explained. I can swear that I didnt add just like that, I would never do that. I explained why I added them and thought we have settled everything and stopped edit warring. This edit war is a waste of time and we shouldnt keep this up. My intentions are only good and I always try to make sure I know what im doing. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the was indeed involved with a battle (say, Operation Barbarossa), his command/impact, especially compared to the others listed, is much smaller. On the western front he only commanded the (totally destroyed) luftwaffe for a few days, why list him but not Ferdinand Schörner, he was supreme army commander for 8 days at the same time. Its just so pointless to add since it was so short and Germany was already defeated by this time. The luftwaffe commander for Operation Weseburung, Erhard Milch, is already listed among the other top commanders of that campaign, why add Greims small command to those people as well? He is not totally purged, he has a fitting place in the infobox for Kursk and some sub-operations of that battle, where he did hold an important post and had impact etc on the battle. I just dont understand the obsession with adding him everywhere. --Havsjö (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not an obsession with adding him everywhere. I also didnt add just him. You see, before I added these people I made sure that im not just adding them where they absolutely dont belong. I thoroughly [not sure if I spelled this word right, if not, sorry about that] cheked before doing it. I read about the battles and made sure they were there and actually commanded. The strict system with Russian wikipedia where everything has to be verified also helped me see if what im doing is right. I trust those people who check there. Although smaller, he and the others did have an impact. They commanded there. As I previously explained, my intentions are only good and I made sure that what im doing is correct and not completely wrong. I considered and checked everything before doing. I hope we can both peacefully come to a conclusion and lets respect each other. I will also have a look at Ferdinand Schörner. :)
Alright, I checked about Ferdinand Schörner. I agree with you, and I think its very fair if he was listed along with von Greim. Thanks for letting me know. --RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all German top positions got reshuffled after Hitlers death and were de-jure active for the last few days before surrender, but not really having the ability or time to do anything. Me mentioning Schörner was not an encouragement to also add him, but rather to show the pointlessness of squeezing in Greim. The Navy also had a similar change of command after Dönitz became President (also, should Dönitz and von Krosigk be listed as top leaders too??)
Further, that edits of Russian wikipedia need to be confirmed does not mean Russian admins are be-all-end-all omnipotent beings to always know whats best about everything. Im sure that if some admin saw the addition of a commander to an infobox in a battle he did partake in, they would accept this innocent edit. Whats wrong, after all? That was a legitimate edit, not some vandalism or POV-pushing. But does this token accept of that admins subjective opinion mean that von Greims minor command is now the objective standard inclusion for all infoboxes across wikipedia? Other users here have repeatedly told you know that his inclusion is unsuitable alongside other leaders with way higher commands than his in various infoboxes. So dont re-add him in such places --Havsjö (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand that the administrators are just people like you and I, but I did trust them when they accepted edits. They are administrators after all. Anyway, I dont even know why we started this all because as you said, those are legitimate edits not vandalism, POV pushing, wrong edits or lies. Most of these edits stayed there for a long time, nobody touched them and the edits didnt make anything worse or do anything bad. Those were real and helpful edits that actually improved the page. I wont add anything out of nowhere but I would suggest this: von Greim goes in Battle of Britain, Eastern and Western fronts, Operation Weserübung and Operation Barbarossa and Schörner goes in Western front. This seems like a very fair way of ending this all, so we could settle everything on this please and stop with this entire thing and be happy. I think we are wasting our time doing this and we shouldnt have started it at all, because everything was alright before we started. I would be very thankful if we could settle on this and finally rest. Thanks! --RandomGuy2018 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was not fine before this started and not helpful, which is why I finally removed these bizarre additions. Explain to me why those people should be included in those infoboxes? Its been repeated several times now: their commands were either much smaller than other listed commanders or they were only commanders for an extremely brief time when their respective branch was already destroyed --Havsjö (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was indeed fine before this started. The edits didnt do anything bad and nobody suffered from them. Did something bad happen because they got added? Did the article become worse? Also, the commands arent equally big on all of the people that are listed. All of them are either bigger or smaller than each other. I already explained that the commanders were added because they actually commanded there and they werent added just like that. Nothing bizzare about that. If these people get included nothing bad happens and nobody suffers from that. The article isnt vandalized and no wrong information is added. They were real commanders in these battles. Those were completely fair edits and there was no vandalism or wrong information or something that would make the article worse. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You dont need to write these deflecting ramblings? This is not about edits "hurting someone" or an attack. Greims inclusions were bad, because even if he did partake in the battle, they bloated the infoboxes with an irrelevant leader (on such a scale) and could also even mislead people to his significance in those operations. You still dont give a reason as to why he should be there, only why he shouldn't be removed (is his inclusion only based on him being there "didnt hurt anyone"??). Simply answer: why should a man who only de-jure commanded a totally destroyed branch of the armed forced for a few days be included as a main commander in a large-scale campaign infobox? Why should Greim, which such a minor command, be included in the overall Operation Weseburungs infobox, where even a higher command luftwaffe commander is already included? --Havsjö (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Im not writing ramblings. Im tired of this all, and its an absolute waste of time. I give up and I dont see any point to continue this. You seem to edit war often which is terrible. This edit war shouldnt have started in the first place. I already explained that even though it was an almost destroyed branch and it was commanded for a relatively smaller period of time he was a main commander of the respective branch. Thats why he was included. Also, its Operation Weserübung, not Weseburung. Anyway, im not going to continue this, nobody did anything or saw something wrong with the edits before you started with this. I didnt start this edit war but im gonna be the one to end it. I have better things to do than this. Can we please stop this all right now? I wont add anything as you wish, just lets stop this. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Western Front (World War II) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Britain; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adolf Hitler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich Weber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harvey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Germanic name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Leofric and Gundar
Roland (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to People's Court

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at Aktion T4.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 3 December 2019 (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).

RandomGuy2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was suddenly blocked from editing for using the pictures which, as I understand, are violating Wikipedia rules. I would like to be unblocked because: 1. I will simply stop adding any pictures to any page so that some nonsense like this doesnt happen again; 2.The pictures I added were actually relevant to the topic, some other users also tried to add them back but one of the administrators kept reverting the edits all the time (its in the talk page of Aktion T4 as well); 3. I wasnt even told exactly what was wrong and wasnt warned about what will happen to me (that I will be blocked). As I said, I wont add any pictures anywhere again to prevent something like this from happening. I hope someone can help me. Thanks! RandomGuy2018 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

  • What is copyright?
  • How is Wikipedia licenced?
  • Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
  • Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
  • How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2019 (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.

1. Copyright is a lincence given to an owner of a material (pictures, movies, etc) for a certain amount of years. The owner owns the material and others cant copy and use it. 2. Wikipedia cant use copyrighted material. Wikipedia is licenced under the Creative commons licence. 3. Copyrighted content is not allowed on Wikipedia because it violates the copyrights that belong to the owner of the material. 4. Copyrighted content can be used if we cite the sources for it. If its about text on Wikipedia, we cant write in exactly the same words, we are supposed to write it in our own words. If its a picture, it can be used on pages which have a permission to use it. 5. I wont ever add any pictures to any articles again to be 100% sure something ridiculous like this never happens again, and I obviously wont copy and paste any texts from anywhere (I have never done that before though). If I do decide to add a picture anywhere, I will thoroughly check its copyright policy. 

RandomGuy2018 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These answers are not generally correct. You say, for example, that Wikipedia can't use copyrighted material. We can; see WP:FAIRUSE. You say we can use copyrighted content if we cite sources for it, which directly contradicts your previous answer and is not generally correct. You further go on to say we can't rewrite it in exactly the same words, but note that close paraphrasing is not permitted either. For pictures, permission to use the picture on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Please go back and reread WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE and change your answers. --Yamla (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Copyright is a lincence given to an owner of a material (pictures, movies, texts, etc) for a certain amount of years. The owner owns the material and others cant copy and use it comercially. 2. Wikipedia is automatically copyrighted under Berne Convention by Wikipedia editors and it is licensed to the public under liberal licenses. Most of the text and images on Wikipedia are co-licensed under the Creative Commons licence and the GNU License. 3. Use of copyrighted material infringes the copyrights of owners and that can make legal trouble and damage the site. We should write the content ourselves so we can create new copyrighted content which can stay on Wikipedia without worrying about copyright. 4. We can use copyrighted content if it doesnt violate the rules of Wikipedias non free content policy. There is a list of rules on Wikipedia:Non-free content page where it tells you exactly when copyrighted material can be used and how. The same rules are also found on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria page where it tells you that you should respect the rules of non free content and only use non free content if thats the only way to go. 5. I intend to not violate copyright policy by always making sure what I am doing is not violating the rules I mentioned in answer no.4. I also plan to simply stop adding pictures to articles ever again to be 100% something like this doesnt happen again. Hopefully this works. If not, im quitting Wikipedia. Its not worth the time and headache. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to the questions left by a moderator (@Yamla:) which I had to re-answer. Im resubmitting again, because its been extremely long since I re-answered the questions and nobody reacts in any way. At least let me know anything! - 1. Copyright is a lincence given to an owner of a material (pictures, movies, texts, etc) for a certain amount of years. The owner owns the material and others cant copy and use it comercially. 2. Wikipedia is automatically copyrighted under Berne Convention by Wikipedia editors and it is licensed to the public under liberal licenses. Most of the text and images on Wikipedia are co-licensed under the Creative Commons licence and the GNU License. 3. Use of copyrighted material infringes the copyrights of owners and that can make legal trouble and damage the site. We should write the content ourselves so we can create new copyrighted content which can stay on Wikipedia without worrying about copyright. 4. We can use copyrighted content if it doesnt violate the rules of Wikipedias non free content policy. There is a list of rules on Wikipedia:Non-free content page where it tells you exactly when copyrighted material can be used and how. The same rules are also found on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria page where it tells you that you should respect the rules of non free content and only use non free content if thats the only way to go. 5. I intend to not violate copyright policy by always making sure what I am doing is not violating the rules I mentioned in answer no.4. I also plan to simply stop adding pictures to articles ever again to be 100% something like this doesnt happen again. Hopefully this works. If not, im quitting Wikipedia. Its not worth the time and headache. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RandomGuy2018,
Copyright does not appear to have been the only problem with your edits; many of them have been reverted by other users. I believe that edit warring with a bot at Aktion T4 was just the final straw.
Please provide three examples for edits you would like to make now, if the block didn't prevent you from doing so. Please be as specific as possible.
Your unblock request has been too unconvincing yet, after over a month, for anyone to even answer it. I am unbureaucratically converting it to a normal talk page message. Simply create a new unblock request in your reply. Do not repeat the old message in your new request; I'm already fine with your copyright answers.
Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

RandomGuy2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Three examples for edits: 1. Looking for grammar mistakes and fixing them (typos, mispellings, punctuation etc.) or fixing links (such as adding a proper link for the nickname Hal in the infobox section of the name Henry where it was added as a red link with a long unnecessary sentence in the brackets); 2. Removing vandalism from Wikipedia pages, whatever type of vandalism that is (randomly added profanity, information replaced with random nonsense, randomly added jokes or insults in an article about a person, etc); 3. Adding people to the namesake sections in articles about personal names (i mainly used to do this always)(like adding general Robert Gould Shaw to the military leaders section of the name Robert article). Thanks ToBeFree!

RandomGuy2018 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you very much, RandomGuy2018, for your patience and the request.

I'll keep this open for any other administrator for now; perhaps I'll have a look again in a week or two. I recommend providing more specific examples as well, such as "I would do X at article Y". In general, I'm all for a second chance; over four months have expired since the block, and the original reason becomes hard to use as a justification for keeping up the block.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be sure that if no other administrator bothers to see this (which, from my previous experiences, is probably whats going to happen anyways) you will actually have a look those two weeks later, ToBeFree? I was asked to re-answer the questions and got no response at all. Im sick of waiting for nothing all the time. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the request has been answered and the questions have been accepted – it just took quite a long while, and I'm sorry for that. I'll immediately have a look again if you add something (like specific examples for edits you would like to make), and if you ping me with {{u|ToBeFree}}. Note that this only works if your message also contains a signature. Pinging can be tricky. To be absolutely sure that I see your message, click "New section", use "Ping" as the subject, "{{u|ToBeFree}}: ping ~~~~" as the message, and "[[User:ToBeFree]]: ping" as the edit summary. I promise to have a look, usually very quickly, whenever you do that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ToBeFree, for being nice. I knew all the users on this website are not rude. I will look for some edits I could do and add them to the request! RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🙂 You're welcome; take your time. There is no deadline for this offer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you have already done so. Having a look. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JJMC89, I'm pretty satisfied with this: The original block reason is no longer a concern, and disruptive edits are currently not to be expected. The user is responsive, and further problems could probably easily be dealt with using warnings (or, in extreme cases, temporary WP:EW/WP:3RR blocks). Over four months have passed; the maintenance impact of any need for a re-block is probably negligible. I would like to unblock the user; is this okay with you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​It is okay with me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JJMC89! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

[edit]
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, RandomGuy2018. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help! I have had some encounters with pretty agressive users but you are so nice and polite. That is very appreciated! Thank you for helping me out! :) RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the kind feedback. 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, aparrently I am still blocked. The edit button still displays the key icon and I can not edit. It says I am blocked by ST47. What is going on? Should I make a new request and say this is a mistake or something like that? Or you can just unblock this thing? I am pretty sure this has to be a mistake because a mistake block had already happened to me a long while ago (it is in my talk page under the name "sock puppetry" where I was blocked by mistake and then quickly unblocked). This one block says it expires in 8 months and I really dont wanna wait for so long, I have already been waiting for an extremely long time and almost thought of quitting Wikipedia. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am no longer blocked and can edit now. Thank you! It feels great to be back! :) RandomGuy2018 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ToBeFree! I am sorry for bothering you again, but I dont know who else to ask. That weird block is back again and again says that it expires in 8 months. I have no idea what is it all about and Im sure it has to be a mistake. Also, why did it disappear and then just ranromly came back again? I dont understand whats going on. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RandomGuy2018, this is completely unrelated to your appealed block, and the timing is a coincidence. Your network – perhaps you are using a VPN or proxy? – is blocked from editing Wikipedia, due to other peoples' abuse. This has nothing to do with your own behavior and is almost certainly collateral damage. Please try using a different network for editing, or – which likely won't happen so quickly after an unblock – request IP-block exemption when you have established a good reputation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can I really establish a good reputation if I cant edit though? I did make edits yesterday when that block thing disappeared and I used the same Wifi all the time. I have never even used a different Wifi. As I understand its the IP adress that is blocked and I know that some people can have exactly the same IP adress by coincidence. I would believe that this is whats wrong. Could it help if I tried to change my IP adress to a new one on my Wifi settings? RandomGuy2018 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in again today and the block is again gone. I think, if it keeps coming and going like this, I can just come in and see if it is here today and then make edits if it happens to be gone. Whatever, I dont wanna quit Wikipedia so I think this is what ill do. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian (given name)

[edit]

Hi, you added the claim that the name Christian (given name) "can also be derived from the Greek Χριστός, Christ, and Ioannes, Greek form of John". This seems unlikely. Do you have any sources for this? --Macrakis (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I remember adding that a long while ago. I sadly dont have any sources for it, but I can explain why I added it. So, the first thing is Χριστός or Christ, the second can very likely be also gotten from John, because Christ-ian, as you can see, has Ian in the end. Ian is a variant of John. Latvian form of Christian is Krišjānis, it ends with Jānis and Jānis is the Latvian form of John. It really makes a lot of sense and Christian can very well be also gotten from that. :) I hope I explained it well. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Henri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Battle of Beijing
Henry (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Amerigo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lucia (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lucile
Lucy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lucile

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matīss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. 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.

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
  2. Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
  3. For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
  4. For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

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) 06:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Andis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Anda and Andra
Robert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tibetan language

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people with given name Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Beckett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valtteri.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Osis moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Roberts Osis, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. noq (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Henry (given name)
added links pointing to Valentinian and Valentino
Valentine (name)
added a link pointing to Valentinian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roberts Osis (October 13)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kshmr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Roberts Osis

[edit]

Information icon Hello, RandomGuy2018. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Roberts Osis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bronisław.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir (name)

[edit]

It is unsourced. There’s nothing in those articles to say they are “one of the principal commanders” of those campaigns. These are not military commanders. And in any case it wouldn’t matter. you can’t use Wikipedia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Even if it were sourced and and true (which it isn’t) why pick out those items from their bioographies. That’s why there are wikilinks. The only point in having any sort of description is to give a very high level idea of who they are. Not relevant or useful. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A president or a prime minister is a military leader by default, as I already said. For example that jerk Putin is the commander in-chief of the Russian army. "On December 25, 1993 the current Constitution of Russia entered into force, which confirmed the status of the President as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief." So the section is still about military leaders. Im not sure what exactly you dont understand, but the article of a military conflict has a "commanders and leaders" section in its infobox and thats where the principal commanders are listed. Usually those are leaders of a country and also genrals or other military leaders. Believe me, I had a proper look at it and thats clearly where that comes from. I wouldnt have reverted anything without making sure. Please dont edit war. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll open an RfC to get rid of this garbage. It’s unsourced nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enno.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RandomGuy2018. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit (blether) 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request for Sock Puppetry

[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).

RandomGuy2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked as a sock puppet. What triggered it was that I replied to a thread in a talk page. So before me there was an user called TheBritishVampire who had previously already replied. Thats an user I actually know - I clearly have seen him around before. He helped me a few times in Wikipedia and seems like a nice guy. I remember that the first time I interacted with him was on a talk page about WWI but that was some years ago. So to avoid confusion - yes, I know that person and Ive interacted with him before here on Wikipedia. Did he know that I technically had something to do with a thread he was in, in all honesty - dont know so wont say anything about that. I suspect he might have because we have both edited the article about the name Robert as well as the thread was on a page thats connected to the article about the name Robert which I guess could be how he got there but im not gonna make any more assumptions, thats just what I imagine could be. Saw him posting that Robert is his name so I dont feel surprised he did edits on the afticle about the name Robert, which I have also seen. Judging by his edit history he doesnt edit much, but Ive seen him around before. Without thinking much I replied to the thread with my opinion, which I know very well what it was about - the person who started the thread, DeCausa, was someone I had interacted with, that person got mad at me for reverting his edits. He also left a message on my talkpage and seemed mad saying that my edits are garbage or something. With that out of the way - another user who also replied to the thread - and is so far the last to do it - MichaelBeEverywhere, also has been blocked. The reason is the same - he replied to the same thread. Now - I went ahead to see whats going on on the user page. Michael doesn't seem to have an user page BUT he had posted an unblock appeal where he stated that he thinks he got blocked due to him coming from the same country as me which is Latvia and thats true - I am a latvian guy of latvian and ukrainian descent. I also edit on the Latvian version of Wikipedia where I mostly edited the article about the name Robert just like here, but also did some other edits wherever I felt like it. I dont really edit much there anymore but I know some people fro there. So again - I do know who TheBritishVampire is, as much as I can know about someone on Wikipedia and Ive interacted with him before, and MichaelBeEverywhere and I ARE both from Latvia. Also saw that there were two IP addresses which are also said to be Latvian but honestly I dont think anything about it tbh, both are clearly different IP addresses and two people coming fro the same country doesnt mean anything imo, just a coincidence I guess. That same thread also had another IP address replying there but idk where that one is from, it wasnt brought up in the sock claim so I guess its not from Latvia. Anyways, I tried to be as in-depth as I can to clear as much as possible. This isnt the first time ive been blocked on Wikipedia, there was even a time when I was blocked for sockpuppetry because there was an user with the word "random" in the username but that got resolved super quickly as I didnt have anything to do with that person, nor do I have now. Also, im no saint and I have made mistakes on Wikipedia - I was once blocked for using images because there was this copyright problem going on so I admit im not any perfect. I think this should be enough for me to have my editing ability back. If I have also had similar problems before but have managed to solve everything then I believe I can do it now as well. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sock puppetry, though meat puppetry is also possible. You won't be unblocked until you can credibly explain why you're on the same IP address as these people. And, no, I'm not going to believe that it was a coincidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2022 (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.

@User:NinjaRobotPirate Which people do I have the same IP with exactly? Since I saw 3 different anonymous IPs in the talk page thread. Two of them are from Latvia, which I saw and which is my home country, one isnt. But I cant or dont know how to see what IP others of the involved have. I need more information on how exactly this has happened as the evidence thread didnt really help me understand better, there were just links to users and thats all. I dont think ill ever again reply to threads as aparrently being from the same country with someone means youre the same person and as I already said, this sock puppetry thing has affected me before although last time it was easily resolved. What I said that is a coincidence were the two IP adresses which were both from Latvia but were CLEARLY different. There are tons of Latvian users on wikipedia anyway and to top that off, Vladimir is a very common given name in this country as we have a large russian diaspora here so someone from Latvia editing something on the article doesnt seem any strange to me. Either way, I dont think ill appeal another unblock request as this website is pretty toxic and there are thousands of complaints about this website being toxic or unfair online as well as Ive considered quitting Wikipedia far too many times now. Although recieving a reply from you would be kinda cool. And please, give me a polite answer. Far too −many people yelling at each other on every corner of this ridiculous website. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s got nothing to do with those Latvian IP addresses. They are able to check which IP addresses are behind the RandomGuy2018, TheBritishVampire and MichaelBeEverywhere accounts and when they checked they found all had the same IP address. That’s what you have to give an explanation for, that’s not WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, in order to be unblocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but where can I, Ronald aka RandomGuy2018, go and see whats going on? As I already said, I have been blocked before but those times I didnt get something like this simply for replying in a thread about a stupid issue of a crappy article about an ugly name that belongs to some war hungry bald midget whos obsessed with restoring Soviet Union. I actually feel bad for even replying to that thread as its gotten a new user blocked. I still remember when I was a new user and the guy clearly seems disstressed and that makes me feel not very good as I feel at fault for dragging an inexperienced user into an argument. And what do you mean with it not having anything to do with those Latvian IP addreses? You had mentioned them in that thread in which I was accused. Just asking me to "tell how you have the same IP with some other users who happened to reply to the same thread" isnt gonna do much. I need to see more to know what to think or do and if I cant get any more info to help me, im out of this webiste as its not worth my time and mood. I knew coming back here was a bad idea. And no, im not attacking anyone or trying to be toxic myself as Ive seen a plenty of toxicity here, im just saying what I think. I have a pretty cool life outside of Wikipedia so if theres nothing I can do to help myself be able to edit again, I might as well focus on that life. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: they are able to tell that the RandomGuy2018, TheBritishVampire and MichaelBeEverywhere all have the same IP address. Can you explain that? DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa - respectfully, I'd advise leaving this talk page alone now, the only people with a good reason to be here are the operator of the account and CUs reviewing any unblock request.
RandomGuy - checkusers can see data that regular editors don't have access to, such as your IP address and information about the device and web browser that you edit through. We can see that about you, and about the other accounts listed at the SPI. The only people who are permitted to review your unblock requests have access to the same logs. We are not permitted to disclose the contents of those logs to you. You are at liberty to leave this website forever, or to make another unblock request - but if you choose the latter, you will have to explain what we can see in the logs convincingly. Now, I don't intend to get into a discussion with you about it - any information you need is at WP:GAB. Girth Summit (blether) 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, quitting Wikipedia. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RandomGuy2018&oldid=1094618415"