User talk:Unprovoked

This account is a sockpuppet of NotThatJamesBrown (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Hi there

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Unprovoked, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! .. dave souza, talk 12:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please don't use the term 'vandalism' to describe the contributions of another editor (as you did here) unless their edits actually meet the definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism.

While I am inclined to agree that the tag doesn't contribute anything worthwhile, it is being added in good faith. The last thing that homeopathy needs is more acrimony; please don't suggest that any of the contributors involved are vandals. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit wound up over the use of the word "homeophobia", and did intend to leave a longer summary but hit enter too fast - is their a retraction button that works for 5 min or so? It would be useful! Unprovoked (talk)

Please reinstate the tag. Its removal is a gross violation of policy. I have nothing to do with the use of the work homeophobia. --Leifern (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leifern, I don't think that Unprovoked was saying you had anything to do with that loaded term; he was just upset by its use and he slipped up. It would be good if you did your part to reduce the temperature here as well; accusing another editor of a 'gross violation of policy' is a bit over the top here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an NPOV tag because you like the current version of an article is a gross violation of policy and is explicitly discouraged on the tag's text. Unprovoked accused me of vandalism, still hasn't apologized, still hasn't reinstated the tag, and uses as an excuse for his/her accusation a term he/she found offensive that I had nothing to do with. And I am over the top? Please. --Leifern (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's no way to change an edit summary. What you can do is make a Dummy edit with a new edit summary. This would at least remove the 'vandalism' accusation from watchlists, and also give you an opportunity to correct your previous statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that Leifern is offended. I never said the remark that annoyed me was by him, and I hit enter instead of delete and made a mess of it. I'm not offended by Leifern's actions, although I do believe he is in the wrong on the homoeopathy/science issue. I will not reinstate the tag, as the article is not in a state that warrants it. It is almost neutral, when taking wp:weight and wp:fringe in account. In some places it is overly critical, and in some sections overly fawning. If you have a particular problem edit that and discuss it to build consensus. Don't edit war and make general, vague, statements. I want to see facts, references, and discussion Unprovoked (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a gesture of good faith, it would probably be a good idea to make a dummy edit to homeopathy to clarify your edit summary, regardless of how you feel about the tag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was edit protected and it feels a bit late now --Unprovoked (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi. I noticed that your recent edit to Charles Darwin did not have an edit summary. As the previous contributor (whom you reverted without an explanation) had fully explained his/her edit, I have given them the benefit of the doubt and reverted to their version. There is already a discussion about this on Talk:Charles Darwin, if you would like to contribute. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may notice, the addition has now been removed, and a response given to the explanation. Thanks for your help, as Old Moonraker says, an edit summary is always a good idea. .. dave souza, talk 12:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't think you had to leave edit summaries if you were reverting vandalism :) --Unprovoked (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have 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.

If you are not a sock puppet, and 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.

Lara❤Love 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎

A discussion about these blocks has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎. . . dave souza, talk 10:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see things have gone a bit crazy around here since I left. I'd like to confirm that I'm not the user that claimed to be "Martin Chaplin", nor am I "The Tutor" (evidence: I'm in France). Dr88 was another account of mine, and my intention wasn't to deceive but I admit it was a bit of a mess and I can't be bothered to go into that. I left wikipedia editing after the sockpuppetry allegations as it was taking up too much of my time, and I've also been on holiday. I was also embarrassed that I got RDOlivaw into trouble, as he is a friend of mine in real life. I know that he edited wikip under that name, but he didn't know that I also edited. I've edited woo related articles without an account since long before I met Robert. I understand that this can be classed as meatpuppetry, and I have no defence. I will repeat that RDO didn't, as far as I know, realise he knew me or who I was - and I'm sorry for that, and for stalking his edits. I know that he's not too bothered as he can edit from home if he likes, but he would like his account back to avoid future allegations. I guess that he will read this and should be able to work out who I am, and I'll probably speak to him this weekend to apologise. The reason we have edited from the same IP is that he has access to my wifi network when he's at my place, and he must have edited from there one evening. I didn't realise he'd edited wikip from my place and I panicked a bit when I realised he did, but I hoped no one would notice. I guess I should have stopped editing there or made it clean then, and again I'm sorry to wp and to Rob for this problem. I'd also like to thank Whig for giving him advice on his talk page about how to get his account back. Hopefully this can speed things up. I don't know what the procedure is for getting these accounts blocked or closed or whatever, but if someone can advise how to do that I'll follow it through ASAP. (note, to sign my posts I usually use the button at the top as ~ can be a pain on my french keyboard). If I was to say which account was my account, the Dr88 was my real one, and this was an initial test account which I forgot the login details for and then found again, at which point I should have made clear they were the same. I've made a lot of mistakes, but these shouldn't be visited on RDO. Sorry for the ramble. --Unprovoked (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) / Dr88[reply]

Having looked at the edits by DrEightyEight and RDOlivaw, there was clear and convincing evidence that these are the same user in my opinion. I will not describe the methods by which this comparison was made but it was the opinion of multiple checkusers and arbitrators that these are the same user. I don't think it is worth belaboring further or reading new justifications for what was clearly an abuse of multiple accounts. I hope you will find a resolution which allows you to edit under a single account and within the rules of Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. It is appreciated. The Tutor (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you express appreciate Whig (finally). He IS a great guy/editor. Please know that many of us who advocate for homeopathy are real people, are not simply pushing wacky ideas, are not simply interested in just pro-homeopathy info, and strive for high integrity. In whatever you and RDO do, please know that we are not the enemy (ignorance is). DanaUllman^Talk 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that particular appreciation was directed towards me. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email from NotThatJamesBrown

Hi, I received an email from NotThatJamesBrown (via my old Dr88 account) asking me to log in from my usual IP, edit my page, and request a checkuser to hopefully clear him of being a sock of me. Consider it done. I have also asked RDO to do the same. --Unprovoked (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that Checkuser policy prevents this sort of thing. Checkuser cannot prove innocence. Jehochman ^Talk 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]