Melleke voos
Melleke voos, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
|
Hi Melleke voos!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi Melleke voos! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 09:42, Saturday, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
April 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Melleke voos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not sure why I have indefinite ban but i'm guessing some admins are protecting their own interests?. I have been accused of 'SockPuppetry' which was the result of two editors at the same location. A mistake I admit however a indefinite ban seems questionable.
Personally I believe the ban is ignorant. Admins have simply used this technicality to earn badges with out paying any attention to what has been going on, why? because they don't care. Admin Vanjagenije stated in his email to me " I do not intend to read xxxxx xxxxx article, or improve it's references because I don't care about it". See the thing is Wikipedia is about its articles which should be factual or have reliable sources, this is what makes wikipedia. Someone has to go throught the material and check it against sources and validate it which I had done on the page in question from 13 June 2015 to August 2015. Now you have undone all the work and banned me for it.
I never avoided the three revert rule as suggested by Yamaguchi先生, I didn't even know it existed till today, however sometimes to get back to the revert multiple revert must be done as bots tend to get inbetween and make changes and in this case it was required. I blame the lack of sensible intervention from admins for this predicament. Look at the content being restored, it's ALL by unregistered users, is this not sockpuppeting itself? as the edits and intentions are the same which is to restore content and the similarity is there are no edit notes what so ever! You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction in the mess, you a discouraging legitima editor from editing because editing such pages is simply dangerous as it can lead to indefinate bans.
Look at the current content (something which I have been through) it is all promotional, has no sources, and is from person close. Some of the content is from an account which has the same name as the person! I dared to challenge the content and you ban me? and leave this up, at this rate you are going to ruin wikipedia.
I request my ban be lifted. I no longer have any intentions to edit, though I would like to be able to make suggestions on talk pages.
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:51, 19 April 2016 (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.
Melleke voos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request a admin take their time before making a decision based on checkuser. No one has taken into consideration all the problematic edits which were made by IP addresses that were logged out. No one stepped in then and now admins seem adamant on focussing on the superficial problem rather than acknoledge its root. Melleke voos (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A checkuser, @Jpgordon: above has confirmed that you have abused multiple accounts. SQLQuery me! 16:03, 19 April 2016 (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.
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit - Hi Melleke voos! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 11:01, Tuesday, April 19, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Melleke voos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is incorrect, which accounts and what abuse? The abuse was carried out by non logged in users which admins like Yamaguchi先生 failed to acknowledge. Look at the current version of the page It has been reverted back to where it should be.
On two occasions Yamaguchi先生 allowed multiple (16/18 April 2016) non logged in reverts. These reverts were carried out after admin MSGJ edits (5 April 2016).
If Yamaguchi先生 was sensible he should have blocked non logged in users, instead he chooses to earn stars by picking on me. Why is it Yamaguchi先生 and Vanjagenije are not in this conversation? I down right disagree with this ban. Why am I being associated to user Userbro? Melleke voos (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This block is not about the the wrong version of any given article, rather it pertains to the abuse of multiple accounts for the purposes of edit warring and block evasion. They are separate issues. Request to unblock has been declined on the basis that the abuse is CU confirmed and you are continuing to be dishonest regarding said abuse of multiple accounts. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (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 to reviewing admin: this person created User:Bravadis in order to continue edit warring on Tommy Coster. It's quite unambiguous. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
No Bravadis is another user from same area. We discussed and accepted the mistake with admin Vanjagenije and who gave a 7 day ban which was set to expire today. Also why hasn't anyone blocked/banned 104.152.45.18, 104.152.45.10, 185.94.31.100, 104.152.45.18? these addresses have been vandalising this page by constantly restoring garbage. The only revert left is to undo it which then leads to persecution by admins. I assume Ohnoitsjamie is a sockpuppet of mine too and he is warring too? Clearly his actions are no different to any one elses Melleke (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Checkuser is more than a geography check. And more than just an IP check as well. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22
- 02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Awesome!.. In the mean time would it be fair to remove the entry "Retsoc Tech" as it seems to claim some other guys company that doesn't seem to be linked to any of this? Melleke (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Melleke voos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Which accounts are your refferring to??? Iv'e said it time and time again bravadis was an honest mistake. Stop accusing me of edit warring and block evasion. You have no idea what you're talking about so stop pressing that button and get off your high horse. Melleke (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQLQuery me! 00:25, 20 April 2016 (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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
As you've been using the unblock template for back-and-forth communication, I'm revoking your talkpage access. Checkuser data is very specific (including browser headers, and other metadata). SQLQuery me! 00:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)