User talk:Talophex

Welcome!

Hello, Talophex, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Saint Louis encephalitis. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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! Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to UCF Knights football, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

You appear to be engaged in WP:Disruptive editing, repeatedly adding both non-WP:NEUTRAL and unsourced content into this article.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] UW Dawgs (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Specifically, you have again reintroduced a specific claim of , but their website listing consensus champions since 1869 has so far not recognized UCF's claim.[6] and added this new ncaa.com URL as citation. Your new claim re "consensus champions" is not supported by the two existing citations. Your new/3rd citation URL does not state it is a listing of "consensus champions" (the word "consensus" does not appear anywhere on that page) and therefore your edit fails verification as written. As you likely know, the NCAA does not directly select champions at the FBS level, but it does report on the selections of numerous 3rd party selectors. The NCAA has also well-publicized Colley Matrix's 2017 selection of UCF within its materials, including via 2018 Record Book, pg 115 UW Dawgs (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talophex. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read what a sock puppet is and think I understand the situation: The user who was accused of being my "sock puppet" is a friend I was talking to about an article. I think what he actually committed is something called "meat puppetry", since he basically just joined in editing to fight against the user who was reverting all my changes. He apparently didn't have enough edits at the time, so he made some small edits to reach the minimum and then added one of my reverted changes back. While he is probably guilty of "meat puppetry" or whatever it is, I have been a wikipedia user for years and in no way encouraged him to do this. I simply mentioned that several other users are abusing an article by constantly reverting changes by people who disagree with them. Whatever he did after that conversation is on him, not me.

Decline reason:

A friend or your cousin? Try to get your story straight. And how do you explain the technical identity? Huon (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2018 (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.

He lives in my apartment building, of course our IP addresses will be similar, and I don't see what difference it makes if I'm related to someone who got over-excited about righting some wrong on an editing dispute.

Fun fact #1: CheckUser data comprises more than just IP adresses. Fun fact #2: That's not how IP addresses work anyway. Huon (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]