Csylcox

Welcome!

Hello, Csylcox, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Pointe LaRoche 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

November 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Csylcox. Your recent edit removed content from Lissy Trullie. The text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. The removal of the official site link was unwarranted, and appears to be vindictive in nature, related to this matter. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree as the guidelines suggest to avoid any social networking sites as external links or references so I removed it.--Csylcox (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

With respect, that guideline applies with the exception of official sites, and a band's official myspace is widely considered acceptable. But that is not the point. This was a spiteful removal of content from an article of which User:Dissolve is a major contributor. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blocked as a sock puppet

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC))Reply
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I feel I should not be blocked as a sockpuppet because of the following: I'm not my wife. She has her own account as you know. I have been properly editing articles for quite some time[[1]]. I didn't know there was a policy (WP:FAMILY) about user accounts being on the same IP being considered the same person and them needing to identify on their pages such things (policy and guidelines are not easily found nor noticed to users). I even started the discussion about the carly-pope.com external linking and requested the WP:3O after Dissolve refused to explain what exactly was going on while just warning with templates. The discussion was started from our IP just before the autoblock took affect. I also didn't know about the WP:3RR policy as Dissolve never mentioned that to me. All warnings apparently were made on my wife's discussion page with none to me and only learned of this policy after reading what he wrote there and after I started the discussion. This really all stems from an editor (Dissolve) removing a link that had been present for over a year that he tried to remove once prior that had been submitted by someone else entirely sometime before that. And the only reason we wanted the reference there was because no problems were found by any other editors regarding the paragraph that was directly taken from the site during the time the site was referenced nor that paragraph was listed. I also felt the site belonged because it seemed to fall under the following guidelines: :WP:ELMAYBE #4:

"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

:WP:ELOFFICIAL third paragraph:

"No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4."

:WP:SPS third paragraph:

"Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

:I have personally seen messages from Carly sent directly to my wife and know how to discern even a fake person emailing or messaging her and have seen first hand that she is in direct contact with her agent and directors from her many works. This is how she is able to get copyright permission for many of the works on the site. And with how much stuff has been stolen/used without credit she can get overprotective of the site (as observed). As long as her site is not directly quoted since it cannot be referenced here she will be contempt with out having an account. Personally, I like having an account but only ever really make minor edits to some articles (like typos or bad external links or references).

Decline reason:

I'm somewhat reluctant to decline this request, but it does appear that your wife was using your account to avoid scrutiny on herself. So at the very least, you weren't in control of your account. Blueboy 96 21:33, 3 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

She does not have access to my account and was never using it to avoid scrutiny. I admit was trying to undo Dissolve's edits as he didn't explain anything of why except with templates referring to policies that actually had the other things i mentioned above for the reasons above (she also came to me saying someone was removing the site for no reason). But we never use each others' accounts. We have separate accounts for actually a lot of things come to think of it, i.e. email, gmail, google, yahoo, aim, hulu, youtube, here, facebook, myspace, netflix we had separate for a long time then it was just cheaper to combine them, and maybe a few others i'm not thinking of. If I need to change the password and never tell her I will.--Csylcox (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

MEATPUPPETRY

"Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives."

Aditionaly;

(Persistent spamming)
Edit warring
Breaching the sock puppetry policy

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only

(Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.).

Long term persistant spamming, long term edit-warring using Meatpuppetry and brute force to include you and your wifes personal websites, despite discussion and consensus these links are not appropriate.Hu12 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2009 (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.

Add topic