User talk:True Crime Reader

Welcome, and happy editing

Hello, True Crime Reader, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! CliffC (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Rollback Request

Hi, as I was going through my watchlist, I saw your request on the rollback page. Although I see your intentions are good on fighting vandalism, one thing I have noticed and another admin will probably point out is that you do not warn your the users/IP that vandalize the page. Please add a template for warning from this page as it is the only we can get users/IPs blocked is from the amount of warnings they have received. Thanks and good luck!--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for that tip. I wasn't aware that it was something I should be doing, but will start doing that from now on. Again, thanks. I appreciate any and all constructive help I get! True Crime Reader (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You may use Wikipedia:Twinkle to help with warnings as you can just choose from a list or other tools from this list to help you fight vandalism. --iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. And I just responded on your own talk page as well. True Crime Reader (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed, but lets try to keep the convo at one place, it seems the admin has denied your request and gave you the same advice I have given.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Still learning the ropes beyond just making edits and undoing vandalism. No more responses on your page. Got it! True Crime Reader (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I came here to tell you that I'm afraid I've declined your request for rollback and that I've left you some advice at WP:PERM/R#User:True Crime Reader which I hope you'll find useful, however I got multiple edit conflicts! Do let me know if you need a hand with anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering my request (although I think you probably only took a split second to actually consider it, LOL! :-) I appreciate the help and suggestions I'm getting. True Crime Reader (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to test something, you can always use the Wikipedia:Sandbox or make a sandbox of your own. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions in using Twinkle, although it is pretty straightforward. XD--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 02:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the sandbox option after it was too late. Oh, well. Next time. Thanks again. True Crime Reader (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem bro, it won't be too long before you get rollbacker, I only got my rights a week ago myself.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I think a brand new editor would not even know about rollbacker rights after only a couple months on Wiki, and make this request so prematurely. I am suspicious this may be a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Time will tell. Just sayin'...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will put up with a lot in an online venue but not accusations coming out of no where. I don't know who you think you are but do it to someone else, dude. Either that or keep this kind of crap to yourself. If I need to I will find who ever I need to in Wikipedia to see you don't make these kinds of accusations again. True Crime Reader (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Civility and Threats. Have a nice day. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to it yourself. And while you're at it stay off of this page in the future. True Crime Reader (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] WikiLoving advice. Peace..DocOfSoc (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "wikiloving" about accusations coming from no where. You accused me of something out of the blue and without provacation of any kind. Try and back out of your accusation through the article you cited all you want but it was what it was and I took it exactly as you meant it. And how many times do I have to tell you to stay off this page? True Crime Reader (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a problem with DocOfSoc not assuming good faith here. Anyways, keep up the work bro, you will get them eventually.--iGeM iN ix 00:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea where that came from or what it was all about but I do know that I didn't care for it. Thanks for the encouragement. True Crime Reader (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert

You are way past 3rr on the Lizzy Borden article. Please self revert the last two edits so I don't have to deal with any boards to file a notice of the breach. I've never done one before and I really don't want to start now so please self revert the two edits and call it a day. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion -- see SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

What the hell is going on and why am I blocked for being a sockpuppet?? I am neither evading a blcok or socking. I want this reviewed and dealt with appropriately ASAP. True Crime Reader (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this for two reasons. First, the very first edits from this account show a prescience which clearly indicate a familiarity with Wikipedia in general, and with editing within the area of true crime/serial killers. This is not just about knowing about these serial killers, its about knowing about the editing history and culture of serial killer articles at Wikipedia, knowing the editors and issues surounding these articles, which shows that, the day this account started editing, you already knew about this area of Wikipedia in an indepth way. This makes the account very suspicious, and SRQ is the obvious connection here. Secondly, and more importantly, is the abusive way you interacted with Doc below. Let me make this crystal clear. If you had not treated Doc so abusively below, I may have asked you some questions regarding your prescience of Wikipedia, and may have accepted some sort of reasonable explanation other than a connection to SRQ. However, they way you treated Doc below convinced me that, even if you are not a sockpuppet (and you may still be), you should still not be allowed to edit Wikipedia based on how you treat other people. Jayron32 01:00, 17 October 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The way I treat others? How about the way I've been treated for no good reason? Can you blame me for being mad? Fine, I shouldn't have snapped at Doc 9871 the way I did but I think I had every reason to be angry and question what was going on. It seemed like Doc 9871 was plainly mocking me and my edits and I still have no idea why. True Crime Reader (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, this doesn't address the sockpuppetry charge in the slightest. Second, there's WP:NOTTHEM. Third, it's clear from your language that you cannot at present discuss things in a civil manner without making personal attacks. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2010 (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.

You might want to change the "wording" of your unblock request, and carefully read the guide to appealing blocks. Reword some awkward sentences, and rework some wording to appear more encyclopedic[2]... Doc talk 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the f*** are you talking about and who the hell are you? This is amateur bullshit if I ever saw it. True Crime Reader (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually read the WP:GAB. I'm "paraphrasing" your edit summary that I provided with the diff. Maybe a WP:CheckUser of yourself and the other accounts would clear this up? Would you like to request this to clear your name? Doc talk 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LIke I said before, who the hell are you? Reading your talk and user pages I can see you aren't an administrator so why are you even telling me what to do? I'll wait for someone with clout thanks. In the meantime, go mess with someone else. True Crime Reader (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I give up. If you all want to believe I'm a sockpuppet when I'm not then go ahead and live in your delusions. Outta here. True Crime Reader (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeya! "If you want to think I am a sock puppet then go ahead."[3]. "You all seem to be certain I'm someone I'm not..."[4]. Par for the course, really... Doc talk 04:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]