Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, 14Ave, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
SatuSuro 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Walter Main
editHi, and welcome to Wikipedia!! Just to let you know that when a person's date of death is completely unknown, it's supposed to be extrapolated from when he was last known to be living: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death. And the correct category for that is Category:Year of birth missing, for people who died relatively recently and whose date of death might well become known: if you click on that link, it explains the difference. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
unreferenced opinion
editYour Wind erasure and the reasons given are correct Wikip polica, I know and I was overstepping the mark. But whar gets me here at Wikip (nothing to do with you) is this silly "We are the New Britannica" selfdelusion. If Wikip wanted to be the best or even a good encycl. it would have to throw out all the obvious nonsense here (well sourced and otherwise). I have read such nonsense here you would not believe it.. But Wikip wants to go to the market in style and leave the past behind and like every successful whore thinks without pause about how to become respectable in old age. Bingo! In comes the "You just have to be boring" and you dumb authors "better not utter a single unsourced sentence" rule, which rule is perhaps even necessary, because people here tend to write illremembered halftruths into articles about which they are basically completely ignorant about. People also tend to vandalize articles about which they know nothing about. But, as said your edit was absolutely correct.--Radh (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I assume that you are referring to my edit of the Edgar Wind article here. 14Ave (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but as I admitted it is not souced, but you (I mean all of wikip) has to ask themselves why they want a completely boring encyclopedia--Radh (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Ground sloth, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Specifically, note the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO; See Alsos should be as few in number and as relevant as possible, and should not link to articles already linked in the main body of the text. Anaxial (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
14Ave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Without first receiving a warning of any kind, I have logged on today to find that my account has been blocked from editing. This action is unwarranted. Please check my edits and you will find that I have engaged in no sort of disruptive or abusive behavior. The stated reason given by Wikipedia is that I am abusing multiple accounts, which is untrue as I do not use multiple accounts. I only edit from my work station computer which is on a wireless network shared by dozens of users. Please review my account to confirm that none of my edits are abusive, and then unblock my account.
Decline reason:
You should have received some sort of notice but the rationale for your block can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azviz/Archive#Report_date_May_22_2009.2C_04:49_.28UTC.29. You can request again but understand that unless it's unlikely people are going to unblock a checkuser's determination. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
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.
14Ave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not receive any type of notice, and further, no complaint has been lodged against my account. It seems that I have been caught in the peripheral of some unrelated dispute.
I have read the policy for use of the checkuser, and my account does not meet the criteria. Even the checkuser admin was uncertain as he added the statement "(might bear a second opinion, but I think it's solid)" to my account being linked to the others. Question: Did anyone review the results to give the second opinion that the admin was requesting?
I have also now read the policy on abuse of multiple accounts, and nothing of the sort is connected to my account. I implore you to make a proper review of my edit history. You will see that I have no over-lap with any of the blocked accounts.
Decline reason:
Duplicate request. Mangojuicetalk 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
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 were clearly a well-experienced user before you started editing with the account on May 1, 2009. If you could clearly indicate the names of your prior accounts, it would go a LONG way towards convincing us that you are not Azviz. However, given that you have no alternate explanation for your instantaeously indepth knowledge of arcane Wikipedia practice and terminology, coupled with a positive Checkuser result, there does not appear to be a more logical conclusion. If you are not Azviz, please tell us who you are so we can put this to rest. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
14Ave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 3 months, but I did not create an account until about a month ago. My previous contributions were made using an IP address. I have now read Wikipedia policy and this is what I have discovered: Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry Policy: If a checkuser inquiry or other evidence finds that two accounts are using the same IP address to edit the same articles, this does not necessarily mean the same person is operating both accounts. It is not uncommon for people who live or work together or who otherwise know each other to have common interests, or even to have face-to-face discussions about the same articles. Provided that there is no meatpuppetry or canvassing, and each person is editing in a manner that s/he naturally would independent of the other, this is acceptable. I bring to your attention that my account has not been editing the same articles as the blocked accounts, but even if was true it would be still acceptable by existing Wikipedia policy. As stated before, I am contributing through my workplace computer that is connected to a wireless network. Several dozens of people have access to the same wireless network. Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry Policy: Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sock puppetry is occurring, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sock puppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly. It is obvious that I am an innocent victim of collateral damage, whereby a block to some other contributor has caused my account to be inaccessible. I have never commented on a deletion discussion, and there is no meatpuppetry or canvassing, so according to Wikipedia policy my account should not be blocked. I request that you follow Wikipedia policy and unblock my account.
Decline reason:
See generally the notes below, and further the statement here. Nja247 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
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.
- Note the link you quote from is an essay on policy, not policy itself. Nja247 07:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will ask Luna Santin to comment. In the meantime, please post only one unblock request at a time. Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Luna has responded at his talk page. I would like to voice my inclination to decline this unblock request, what with this editor's unwillingness to admit practicing sock puppetry. AGK 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)