User talk:TheVicarsCat

Welcome!

Hello, ForSPI, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LynnWysong, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LynnWysong

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LynnWysong, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: The SPI case was raised in good faith as I believed that the connection was too obvious. However, LynnWysong has pointed out that an erroneous connection was made before for much the same reason and was exonerated. I naturally, bow to superior wisdom, and will investigate if (as creator) I can delete the page myself. If I cannot, I have no problem with you deleting it on my behalf as creator. ForSPI (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, how is it, with eight whole edits under your belt in over a year, did you happen to show up at MBW's ANI? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LynnWysong: You are jumping to erroneous conclusions. I normally edit from an IP address. That IP address is dynamic so it changes every time I log on. Like anyone who has a dynamic IP, I have no control over this. I have many more than eight edits from previous IPs. ForSPI (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying those are your edits from that IP, because you are intermittently assigned that IP?Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LynnWysong: Not quite. Only the latest edit is. The previous ones are from someone else who was allocated the IP address previously. That is how dynamic IP addressing works. In fact: it looks like three Wikipedia editors have had it. ForSPI (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name

The account name "ForSPI" appears to be a violation of the username policy, specifically, the prohibition against

Usernames that give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have; e.g., by containing the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", or similar terms, such as "admin", "sysop", or "moderator".

ForSPI seems to indicate some official relationship with WP:SPI. Could you please go to WP:CHU and change your name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your username and per WP:SCRUTINY.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

I request that that part of the block for allegedly evading scrutiny be reviewed. The issues are: 1. There is innuendo that this account must have been created to evade scrutiny as it is new. In fact, if an IP address editor attempts to create a new SPI report, the instructions there tell you , "Log in or create an account to start [the investigation]" (my emphasis). It is for this reason alone that this account was created. 2. There is further innuendo that this account is a sock of the very people being reported at SPI. This is a rather bizarre reason to create a sock account - to get yourself blocked?? 3. For from evading scrutiny, I have in fact, been very open about who I was before the account was created. Here I was completely open that I was 148.252.129.201 before the account was created. And even LynnWysong acknowledged this. Since this is a dynamic IP address, I might have a different IP today, but this is beyond my control. 4. All the evidence points toward the ItsLassieTime sock farm (of whom I am supposed to be a part) being based near Nabraska in the US. (based on editing pattern and location of linked IP addresses). I, on the other hand, am located in the UK (though the location is a couple of hundred miles out). 5. It has been alleged that I created the account solely to harass LynnWysong. In reality, I have never come across LynnWysong before. The SPI complaint was raised in good faith having seen another brand new account weigh in and make an ANI complaint against their opponent in an edit war. I have already acknowledged that the suspicion was erroneous and even apologised, once I became aware that it had happened before. 6. There is disagreement over whether my username violates policy, but that can be easily dealt with. Change the name of the account to something like, "TheVicarsCat" ForSPI (talk) 9:40 am, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Please request a name change at WP:CHU. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits to Daniel Boateng yours? If not, what have you edited before? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: No, I declared at the SPI that only the first edit from 148.252.129.201 was mine. The previous ones were when someone else had the IP address. Being only an occasional editor, I do not have a record of all the IP addresses that I have been allocated. I tend to edit articles on historical technology, electronic related articles. Looking at one article that I remembered editing, I found this set of edits for which I can take the credit for all of them. ForSPI (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and these (4th April onwards only). ForSPI (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment...I really don't care if ForSPI is unblocked. But I would like to clarify that he/she is not suspected of being a sock of ItsLassieTime, but as a sock of an editor with an ax to grind with me. Whereas I'm not entirely convinced that isn't the case, I think there's enough doubt to question the block. On the other hand, blocking this account will have little consequence, since the editor can just go back to editing with an IP.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LynnWysong: I had no relationship with you nor any axe to grind before I raised that SPI. You stated that you had been accused before of being the two socks that the SPI named. I would observe: that when I raised the SPI, there was no record of any previous SPI complaint so there was no way that I could have known that any allegation(s) had been made. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right. I was actually blocked as being a sock of ItsLassieTime, who was probably the sockmaster of the two socks that you filed the SPI on. After that experience, and some of the others I've had, I don't put it past some of the editors I've encountered to file a harassment investigation. And, I have a hard time believing that you just came out of nowhere and decided to involve yourself in the ANI the way you did without any prior observations and interactions with the players involved. But, whatever. You say you didn't, and I'll accept that unless and until something else happens that raises more red flags. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LynnWysong: In the same good faith, I accept what you say. I didn't come out of nowhere, but had to create an account to file the SPI (as an IP address I could not (unless a previous one had been filed - which it hadn't)). So let's call a truce on this one. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZH8000's talkpage

Hi VC- First, thanks for your input in the Great Vignette Debate of 2018. Just a note to say that I believe it is generally accepted practice to avoid doing maintenance on another user's talkpage. I'm no authority here, so it may well be that your deletion of that section meets with accepted guidelines. You might want to look for guidance, but good luck navigating the often chaotic WP help zone. Eric ^talk 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vignette talk page proposal

Hello, Robert McClenon decided to close the discussion on the noticeboard, so I've copied my new proposal for the edit on the article's talk page here. Please weigh in if you're still interested :) 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm ZH8000. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:ZH8000 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are not supposed to remove anything from a user's talk page WP:TALK! ZH8000 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZH8000: The edit summary was both present and accurate. Please read the linked policy WP:POLEMIC. You are not permitted to maintain such lists except for use in a timely manner. The list dates from November 2016, so any use now cannot be described as timely. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you note

Simply saying a big thank you for all your edits! :) 66.87.84.55 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@66.87.84.55: Please note: new posts go at the bottom.

No problem, but it hasn't finished yet. ZH8000 has taken to socking and block evasion so it is entirely possible that his Wikipedia editing career is over. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you for raising the 3RR report for me. I was in the middle of doing so last night when we had a power cut. I started again today but discovered you had beaten me to it. What did you mean that it was a ‘lame argument’? 85.255.232.36 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't actually do it on your behalf. ZH8000 is a serial edit warrior and disruptive editor and this behaviour needs to be corrected.

By 'lame', I meant that a redirect is a redirect. The reasoning behind it is completely irrelevant as long as it redirects to the right place. Most people following a link never get to see the additional text anyway. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

discussion location for placename translations

Hi VC- Re your comment on ZH's talkpage: I agree with your point as a general rule, but ZH has a long habit of doing this on other articles. Just wanted to let you know where I think Toby was coming from. Eric ^talk 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: ZH has a long habit of doing lots of things he should not be doing but that should not stop the rest of us from doing things the way they should be done. There, I've gone and run out of 'should's'! TheVicarsCat (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive_tag_team_doing_bulk_section_deletions_against_numerous_other_editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]