Thesideliner2014

March 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at The Average Homeboy. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I'm not saying the sources aren't credible. I'm saying the article reads like both an advertisement and a fansite. gsk 01:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thesideliner2014, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Thesideliner2014!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Average Homeboy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Average Homeboy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. STATic message me! 20:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesideliner2014, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

gsk 05:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

Thesideliner2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to request my block be removed. As I explained previously, although I had multiple accounts, your regulations state that they must be used for illegitimate reasons. And they were not. I was open about all matters from the beginning, as best I could. I am not terribly computer literate, and this was my first attempt at doing something like this. Not only that, but there were three other editors contributing to the page at different times, leaving notes and accusations, and making changes. I tried my best to keep up with everything that was happening while knowing that my page could be deleted at any moment. When I realized I'd made any errors, I immediately contacted the others and attempted to clarify matters, apologize, and make clear my intentions to work within the Wikipedia guidelines. The "Average Homeboy" page is all of two paragraphs and is not controversial in any way. I approached all this with the best of intentions and it seems to me a lot of people instead of being so hostile could have tried to be a little more helpful and perhaps made suggestions rather than accusations. I have to assume they were all new at this once. I don't feel anything I did, whether it unintentionally violated any regulations, warranted an indefinite block. I hope you'll reconsider and allow me an opportunity to become a productive contributor to Wikipedia. Thank you. Thesideliner2014 (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You claim that you did not use your multiple accounts "for illegitimate reasons", and that you had "the best of intentions", but that claim does not stand up to investigation. You used two of the accounts to post messages on a talk page defending an article against deletion. Since the second post added no new reasons for not deleting that had not already been given, but merely repeated the points that the first one had given, it is perfectly clear that your purpose was to give a spurious impression of support from a different editor. You claim that you were away from home and had no access to your password when you created the account Quikwikwriter, but if that were so it would be difficult to understand how a CheckUser could link that account to this one. Using one of your accounts, you claimed here not to be the person who used this account, but it is now clear that that was untrue. An unblock request is unlikely to succeed if it is based on denying having done things which anyone who spends a few minutes looking at your editing history can see that you have done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (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.

Nomination of Average Homeboy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Average Homeboy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average Homeboy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. gsk 08:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesideliner2014, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

gsk 03:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)