User talk:Samenewguy

Welcome!

Hello, Samenewguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samenewguy, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Samenewguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

You seem to have the potential of being a good editor but you need to read WP:CIVIL. Probably not a good idea to comment on other religions either if it's going to be disparaging. On another point, God in Hindusim badly needs more references. I was looking at your changes to the lead and realised that it doesn't obviously summarise the article - see WP:LEAD. For example, the main body of the article barely mentions monotheism but the lead talks a lot about it. Which reminds me for some reason - one thing I didn't understand when I started was that if we copy text from another article we should put a link to that article somewhere, preferably in my opinion in the edit summary, eg "copied and pasted from [[this article]]" I don't think you've done this yet but you might want to in the future. It allows editors to trace edits back to the original editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga

Can you please discuss with me the apropriate place in which to place my edit regarding the Abhidhamma definition of Yoga on the Mainpage--Prestigiouzman (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

please stop. i know that majority of yoga disciplines come from hinduism and I don't have any disrespect for this. there are several articles on wikipedia where majority or important subject comes later because of alphabetical sequenceGoodfaith17 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the block based on sock-puppetry and increasing incivility via that sock after the original short block was set. Stop digging a hole for yourself. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga

Thank you putting an end to the edit war. Goodfaith17 changed the title of the section on "Talk" page of the article from "Changes by Goodfaith17: Reversal of material added by other editors and order of info-boxes" to "Changes by Samenewguy : Reversal of material added by other editors and order of info-boxes". Is this acceptable? I do not think he can replace his name in the title of this section by my name. I am not sure if he knows that these changes are tracked. Samenewguy (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were changes made to this article yesterday by Lightocha, prestigiouzman, DMacks, Tbhotch and myself and these were discussed. Goodfaith17 comes in and reverts those without any discussion whatsoever. Samenewguy (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even if that's true, you still can't edit war. Instead, you revert once, and then if the other person keeps up the bad behavior, report the other person for edit warring again. Furthermore, you've already created at least one sockpuppet, and probably 2 (although I am suspecting another possibility, which is why I haven't reblocked you for longer). I'm going to start an SPI to find out. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to report another person for edit warring. Kindly point me to that info. That sockpuppet you are talking about(I currently have two active accounts in total) is because I wish to delete my first account. And again, I don't know what all implications it will have, particularly to articles that I may have edited with that account. So I have left it undeleted. Kindly point me to any relevant info. Samenewguy (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to admit that. You can't delete accounts on Wikipedia. And if you had used these two account appropriately, we could allow you to choose one, and it wouldn't particularly matter which. But you edited with both accounts simultaneously, on the same articles. And it appears that you did so because your other account, User:Apalaria, had been warned and even blocked for edit warring on those specific accounts. Now, at this point, here's what needs to happen: one, pick one and only one account to use. Two, make an unblock request on that account, which explains all of what you did wrong (note that sockpuppetry is only part of the problem, you still need to address the other issues). Then, if you're unblocked on that one account, we'll make a note showing the existence of the other account. So, which account do you want to edit from. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue all edits from Samenewguy. This account was created in order to end my previous account. It is true that I have used both accounts to edit the same articles but that was from the perspective of ease, not deception - I have been trying to make all newer edits with Samenewguy. However, there are some articles where I used the older account and where the discussion continued till late. So I had to also continue using that account. And in some cases, I lost track of which account I was logged in as. In any case, thanks for letting me know the details. Samenewguy (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the yoga talk page, you were actually agreeing with your other sockpuppet, in an attempt to sway discussion. So your actions were not accidental. See here. I'm sure there are many more examples. 91.109.245.241 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While 91. is almost certainly a sock of the other sockmaster in this catastrophe, it has a point. I thought I had recalled a case like that, and it's helpful to have it pointed out. As Apalaria, you posted in the talk page to complain about Goodfaith17's edits. 3 hours later, you logged on and clearly tried to act like a different person. Your post is written clearly like the user Samenewguy is agreeing with a different user, Apalaria. So are you sure you don't want to change your story? Or do you want me to go see if I can find other instances of poor behavior? Again, an unblock is possible, but we're going to need a full accounting of your actions, along with an explanation of what was wrong with them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted an unblock request. In your post on 15 Sept above you say "note that sockpuppetry is only part of the problem, you still need to address the other issues" - what other issues are you talking about? The edit war? I will avoid edit war, but I will resume discussion on the article on yoga with a view to make it more accurate once the block has been lifted. I am far from convinced that that article has all the relevant information properly represented. Samenewguy (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

The purpose of creation of my second account (this account) is to continue all future edits as this user. And I would like this user to be my primary account in the future, with the other listed as the sockpuppet. I understand that the reason I have been currently blocked is because I used two active accounts to edit the same article and in two instances used one of the accounts to support the argument of the other account. Ever since this account came into existence, I have tried to stick to only one account for making edits on any one article. In a couple of cases, however, I lost track of the user I was using, and upon realizing this when I was using the proper account later, took advantage of the initial mistake. I understand that this was dishonesty on my part and that I should have refrained from the temptation. I ensure that this kind of dishonesty will not occur in the future. I am therefore requesting an unblock of this account and merging of the other account with this.Samenewguy (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So let's see here. Your first account is blocked for edit-warring. Shortly after that block expires, you create this account, which is ultimately blocked for... edit-warring. When the link is discovered, you deny any dishonest motives. Then, when proof of dishonesty is pointed out, you file this mish-mash unblock request saying you didn't intend to use the second account for dishonest reasons, but that you ultimately couldn't resist the temptation?? By the way, besides the instance of agreeing with yourself at Talk:Yoga, I found at least one more instance at Talk:Shiva. Basically, you were clearly justifiably blocked for sockpuppetry. There is no way the community can trust you at this time. I would read through the last pararaph Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks before making another unblock request. Singularity42 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2013 (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.

Response to Unblock decline : Let us evaluate your response to my unblock request. In my request, I already claimed that I used my account dishonestly on two occasions. So, your finding that as one of the reasons to decline my request is absolutely baseless. In fact, there is no substance at all in your argument above. You are essentially repeating the known facts I have already stated in my request. And I have already read the link you sent me, so nothing new there either. Unfortunately for you and Wikipedia, I am not willing to change the truth just to satisfy you. And you tell me "the community cannot trust me" - that I find most ridiculous. From what I have seen on Wikipedia, I think I am beginning to lose any remnant trust on the information presented here and the people who act as "referees".