User talk:Ruski22

Welcome!

Hello, Ruski22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Christian Comic Arts Society. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 07:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts?

Are you the same user as Ckruschke (talk · contribs)? Looking at your edits, it appears so. The Dissident Aggressor 00:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I have never heard of that user before now, I would have to say... No. I am not that user. Ruski22 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also appear to have tagged the Christian Comic Arts Society as COI. Why would you assume that? I don't have any connection to that group. Ruski22 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you tagged me as a SPA in the Mike Nawrocki discussion. I don't understand why you were so hostile towards me, but please discuss things before you jump down people's throats. Ruski22 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Christian Comic Arts Society. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 05:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did address the problems; I removed all the primary sources, and I am not connected to the subject. Ruski22 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account is blocked as a sock further to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts, based on both technical (CheckUser) and behavioural/editing pattern evidence. It is performed by a bot authorized to block accounts for this specific sockpuppetry investigation. This is a CheckUser block. Please refer any unblock request to the CheckUser team, either at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations or through the Functionaries-en mailing list. EgressBot (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (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).

Ruski22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not in any way connected to Orangemoody, in fact, I had been incorrectly also assumed to be Ckruschke. This is my only Wikipedia account, I have no interest in opening another, and I would never use a sockpuppet. Thank you for taking the time to review this,

Decline reason:

Considering a technical match, "I'm not" is not a sufficient explanation. You could start, for example, with explaining why you satrted editing with those particular articles, and how did you immediately know wikitext so well. Max Semenik (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2015 (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.

Let's do this again.

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).

Ruski22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Response to above decline; I don't know which article that I started editing that your referring to. I've edited a wide variety of articles; Mike Nawrocki, Phil Vischer, and Black Lives Matter. Because I'm a Christian, and I'm black; don't understand why I have to clarify why I have interest in those things, but fine there it is. I learned rather quickly how to edit wikitext since my first edits were creating an article about a Christian comic group Christian Comic Arts Society. I simply copied text from a quality article about another comic group, the National Cartoonists Society, and learned rather quickly by reverse engineering that text.

Decline reason:

As this is a checkuser block, it can't be undone by a reviewing admin, but I have passed it to the relevant page for investigation. Black Kite (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2015 (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.

I can't believe the hostility that I've seen from this community. And, frankly, this isn't very welcoming to budding editors like myself. The "guilty until proven innocent" approach, is a logical fallacy.

Checkusers have determined that you are technically indistinguishable, or at the very least editing in very close proximity to, the Orangemoody extortion farm. At this point, you are essentially indeed proven guilty. As the bot that blocked you says, any unblock must go through a Checkuser first, one way or another. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Jeremy, its pretty terrible that I'm simply guilty by dragnet. I would like to ask for any assistance in helping on the Christian Comic Arts Society article. Since, at this point, I'm utterly without the ability to fix the concerns with it. Also, one of the users, User:DissidentAggressor has been targeting me since I requested a restore of an article that had been Prodded, that article being Mike Nawrocki. Ruski22 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the article at this point. The proposed deletion process means that if you ever get unblocked your request to have it undeleted will be automatically granted. I'd rather concentrate on getting unblocked in your place. Max Semenik (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Black Kite, your help is very appreciated. :) I think you're right Max Semenik, I'll wait to fix the article, and that getting my account fixed should be my focus indeed, I just find it to be in bad faith from the editors involved in the PRODs. All of this help is very much appreciated. Ruski22 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Note: Black Kite and MaxSem may wish to re-review. On careful re-examination of the technical data and editing pattern, the checkuser team, including checkusers who did not participate in the original Orangemoody case, have decided that there is sufficient variation in the data that we will lift the Orangemoody/checkuser block. There remain concerns about the editing pattern, which most reviewing checkusers felt was promotional, that the decision was made not to lift the block entirely, but to leave the overall block to community review. The community may wish to maintain the block, to alter or shorten the block, or to unblock with or without conditions, based on the assessment of Ruski22's editorial behaviour. I will modify the block after saving this message. Risker (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yipyip hooray! Thanks Risker. Ruski22 (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the truth has set me free

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ruski22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above Checkuser note by Risker. And the previous discussion. Ruski22 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Black Kite! Ruski22 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

@Ohnoitsjamie: I see that you tagged the article Christian Comic Arts Society for deletion, and I'd love to help fix it. But, unfortunately, I can't help as of right now. You can do a search for "Christian Comic Arts Society", and you will find several proper sources for the article. I'd appreciate if you could help me fix it in my unfortunate absence. Ruski22 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HSG and Smile Lee

Hi,

I noticed this via the WP:SPI. Not sure why the system didn't notify me (did you create a new signature with ~~~~ or copy/type it out?). Anyway, I'll go ahead and respond using the third person as the SPI is not closed.

I do believe Smile Lee can make productive contributions to Wikipedia and that he has done so in the past. I also think it's plausible that he encouraged promotion via sock/meat puppetry while not actually creating multiple accounts himself (i.e. it could've been a group of people at the HSG office, as he said). Though, to be clear, there's not a huge distinction and I also have no doubt he's interested in using Wikipedia to promote his company and other topics for which he has a WP:COI.

My advice to Smile Lee, in case he happens to read this, is that if he really wants to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and creates another account to do so: don't touch Heaven Sent Gaming or any connected topic with a ten foot pole. Don't link to it, don't mention it, don't do anything that could be perceived as promoting anything within a couple degrees of separation. As much as topics are not supposed to be "marked" in such ways, when attempts at promotion continue for so long and take so many forms, it does happen, metaphorically speaking. (Although I do need to say that Smile Lee doesn't actually qualify for a WP:CLEANSTART at this point so any account found to be a sock, regardless of articles edited, would have to be blocked.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't known Smile Lee, and I'm assuming that it is this Mario that what I'm tied in with now. I think Heaven Sent Gaming or their web site has their contact information if you want to reach them or whatever. Dont understand any of this, why would they be reading my talk page?Ruski22 (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christian Comic Arts Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian Comic Arts Society 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/Christian Comic Arts Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your hounding my articles... nice. I wasn't even defending the use of that one Heaven Sent Gaming source, you assumed I was, and got me blocked again.Ruski22 (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again...

Again, I'm not fucking orangemoody or Smiel Lee or Toby Turner or anybody else. Spent more time on this "encyclopedia" defending my positions and getting away from lies, than actually editing articles. You've got to be kidding me, this site is a waste of time. I'm out of here.Ruski22 (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]