Unemployed Golfer
Welcome!
|
Hello Edward321 (talk), you just reverted me both here (Disambiguation page) justifying it in the edit summary with "rv to better version", and here (Article page) justifying it in the edit summary with "Rv to more concise version".
I invite you to talk about it here or wherever you might wish, but firstly to comment on the new sources I researched and compiled into the article. I hope you won't decline my invite. It has been hard work for me thus at least I need to understand what is wrong. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I saw your comment on Edward321's talk page and thought I would respond about process not substance. The proper place to discuss issues with an article is on the article's talk page, in this case at Talk:Psychotronics (disambiguation) and Talk:Psychotronics. The reason the discussion should be help there rather than on User talk pages is two fold. First it will also allow others who follow the page to get involved. Then there is the history associated with the article and the discussion. In the future others can see what was discussed and concluded so that we don't have to have the same conversations over again. The next thing I want to point out is that you told Edward321 that if he didn't respond in 12 hours you would just revert. Not everyone is on Wikipedia all the time, you need to give people time to respond based on their real life schedule. To add to this you should read the page on the recommended discussion model. We call it Bold, Revert, Discuss. What this means is someone (in this case you) makes a bold edit to an article. Next someone (in this case Edward321) reverts the bold edit. Now a discussion is held on the article talk page to come to a consensus as to what the article should say. The person who made the bold edit is the one that is really on the hook to show why their edits belong or in other words how they improve the article. Now if the two of you can't come to a consensus after discussing the edits on the article talk page then there are dispute resolution avenues to help achieve consensus. If you have any questions please let me know. -- GB fan 15:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment but just one thing: reverting in 12 hours is not against any rules. Neither I believe making Edward321 aware of it, is. It's just about being clear about my intention which it was supposed to suggests "I'm however willing to respect the 3-revert-rule" (it's like I stated: "I'm obviously going to respect the 3-revert-rule").
- I subscribe 100% to your suggestion about moving to the respective Talk pages. But the basic reason I gave him 12 hours which by the way, it's plenty of time to respond, and at the same time the reason I contacted Edward321 through our Talk pages is that I felt as Edward321's edit summaries were relatively very poor. Weren't they?
- Last but not least.. I cannot know anyone's real life schedule. I challenge you to really subscribe to that part of your comment. Okay I know what you mean maybe (but it involves bad faith): "Don't set people on a schedule threatening to edit war if they don't respect it". Correct? Is that what you meant? Well that's the most wrong meaning you could have ever juiced from my Talk page invitation, I think. But maybe I'm missing something, what do you think? I hope it's clear it was not my intention to be arrogant, let alone violate guidelines. See you on the Talk pages involved maybe, and thanks for contributing. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I never said that reverting after 12 hours was against any rule, just pointing out that 12 hours is not enough time to respond if he does not log back on to Wikipedia for 24 hours. Looking at his editing history his editing is sporadic. He stopped editing at 16:24, 19 June 2016 and didn't make his next edit until 13:52, 21 June 2016 almost 48 hours later. Again no edit until 04:36, 22 June 2016 just short of 15 hours. Again no edit until 02:52, 23 June 2016 about 23 hours where he made 3 edits in a row but then no edit until 13:48, 23 June 2016 (11 hours) where he made six edits. This shows that there is a good possibility he won't log back into Wikipedia until after your imposed deadline is past. You didn't know what I meant and don't try to read bad faith into what I wrote. I am not implying bad faith on yours or anyone's part. I didn't think you were going to edit war, that never even crossed my mind, I was just pointing out that not everyone who edits Wikipedia is here every 12 hours. -- GB fan 19:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Your other account/s
edit- Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Do you admit that account is yours? It has exactly the same editing patterns and interests. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You give the game away too easily :)
On your account Beautifulpeoplelikeyou in the edit summaries you used the very specific phrase "reply to" when you were replying to someone [1], which matches what you do on your new account Unemployed Golfer [2]. But that isn't the biggest give away. You edited exactly the same articles as Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (examples Psychotronics, Zdeněk Rejdák and Psychotronics (disambiguation). You are not being very clever. If you want to deceive people you need to be a lot cleverer than this. There are clever people on this website. I worked you out easily. Take care. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- GB fan 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC) |
Unemployed Golfer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I know Beautifulpeoplelikeyou in real life. But it's not me. I also know about his ban and did not only read his edits but most importantly he spoke a lot about it face-to-face and in detail. Reconsider this personal attack lacking substance, but furthermore reconsider the block on my account. You need to ask yourself: even if I was (and I'm not) that person, would that be a good enough reason to revert my contribution? What's your take? I'll be honest to the bone: we could say Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is more than one single person although the guy who registered that username never let anyone write on his behalf.. I believe. They (I should say WE) are a group of people living close to each other.. some live with beautifulpeople in the same house, including me. We often have breakfast, lunch and dinner together. And our Internet Service Provider assigns dynamic public IPs (which we didn't even know untill few weeks ago). But who cares? Judge content, don't WP:NPA. You should probably consider this meatpuppetry but he did not ask me to support his view. I researched (thanks to his passionate interest) the argument out of my own will lately (and he knows... but do you care?.. really?). This is ridiculous. It's not healthy at all.. It looks as I'm trying to gag you. This user (Unemployed Golfer) is neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet. I am just a new editor. Got it?. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The technical evidence suggests that you are connected to Beautifulpeoplelikeyou and Co. The behavioral evidence seals the deal. Mike V • Talk 20:27, 23 June 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.
Unemployed Golfer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So my friend gets banned, and now all of us are supposed to keep quiet? Technical evidence? I did provide the technica evidence in the first place... I was replying to Healthygirl and at the moment of clicking "Save page" I got an edit conflict, but all I had to do is copy-paste. Behavioral evidence? Did I break any guideline of behavior in any way? Unemployed Golfer (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yep, you broke WP:SOCK. Again. But you don't believe that that policy applies to you, do you? —DoRD (talk) 20:49, 23 June 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.
Unemployed Golfer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You keep on thinking we are the same person. This block is based on bad faith, although surely I must have similar patterns to him. You have to consider for example (other than the fact we grew together) that english is not our first language thus we write it with the same patterns and grammar as we studied it and with the same cultural background. Thismust be what got Healthygirl on bad faith, even more than the fact our IPs belong to the same ISP of the same country. Isn't it? What a full.. We are two different persons. But again, even if I was him are my contributions supposed to be dismissed? I mean... is it normal to mix content and behavior???? Is it ok to dismiss what could be valuable content on the premise that the contributor broke any behavioral guideline (which again, I myself, didn't). I'm looking weird at all this right now. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Ultimately Wikipedia does not care whether you and the person you share an IP address and an editing pattern with are one or two persons. If we cannot tell you apart, we'll treat you as one. See WP:MEAT. Huon (talk) 00:03, 24 June 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.
- Actually evading a block is reason enough to remove all your edits no matter how good they are. You are not allowed to edit any more and your edits are not allowed no matter how good they might be as you have shown you can not follow our rules. If you continue you will end up without the ability to edit this page either. -- GB fan 22:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't believe wikipedia is soooooo stupid. I just cannot believe that. By the way, you're scary fuckers in control. You're really are the real deal. Note: Building 7 did not collapse on its own. 87.3.91.201 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Unemployed Golfer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Still at it? Am I really supposed to believe that wikipedia works on behavior rather than on content?????????????????????????????? Why don't you go fuck yourself? The point is that whether we are not the same person (sockpuppetry), or liable of meatpuppetry or not, in both cases it's obvious you must consider the relevancy of the content, otherwise wikipedia turns into a joke. This means that if after debating (not stonewalling as you/they do), the consensus reasonably agrees on the lack of relevancy into improving the encyclopedia, then punishment related to meatpuppetry is supposed to be enforced. It really isn't difficult to understand. Of course it's a whole different matter with sockpuppetry because although consensus is not about democracy, democracy does integrate into the consensus building process. But still, if consensus building involved editors are mature enough (which they aren't unfortunately) to work on content rather than on behavior, even sockpuppetry can be punished yet its contributions should be considered correct and utilized. The problem is you are a bunch of whitewhashers. End of story. The only way to get your whitewashing bullshit rolling over, is to keep on protecting the page against edits by IPs. (of course I'm not really gonna turn into a troll creating accounts over and over, just to bypass the protection for a few moments). Building 7 did not collapse due to fire. Be ashamed of yourselves, if you're able to. Also remember anyway, that since I have DHCP ISP I'm theorethically allowed to "spam" the whitewashed article on unprotected pages. See how honest I am. 82.51.51.56 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 19:34, 24 June 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.