Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 10 May 2014

Hi, I noticed you are a new editor and have created two new pages, Wikipedia_france and River_Yeo_(tributary_of_the_Creedy). Wikipdia already has an article on France I segjust you edit it instead of trying to create your own. River Yeo is probably not notable enough to have an article of it's own, but you might look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Rivers and see what you can learn there. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How do I make an article notable? I added a picture to the article. Sorry about the first article. It was a test.

You are not trying to make the article notable you are trying to prove the notability of the subject. Said another way, why should I(or anyone but you) care about the River Yeo? Generally I go to the two wikipedia policies WP:NOTABLE and WP:SECONDARY, but these are full of wikipdia specific terminology that might be difficult for a new editor.

I strongly reccomend that your first actions on wikipedia be trying to improve another article, not creating one, but if you insist on that path Misplaced Pages:Your_first_article is a resonable guide.

When talking on a talk page like this one please WP:sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A delicious pot pie (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) But that makes my question how it is less notable than articles such as Wanagemeswah

It is probably more notable than Wanagemeswah, but just because it is wrong somewhere else on wikipedia, dosn't make it right. Is the river yeo you created an article about any of these rivers River_Yeo?

In River_Yeo,_Somerset the fourth refrence (from the gaurdian) is resonable WP:THIRDPARTY source, can you find something simular for your article?CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Anyone with a brain would stop trying after 17 reversions, right? --A delicious pot pie (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=607945448&oldid=607944471

Seriously. After looking at your own talk page history and archives, your need for protection on them, your continuous decisions to close your ears and delete any messages that disagree with your point of view on something, and your general inability to communicate and willingness to edit war against Misplaced Pages policy (and then ignore said policy), I have every intention of requesting attention toward you. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A delicious pot pie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=] said that I only needed a new username to contribute to the encyclopedia because my first two were references to Willy on Wheels. All of my edits have been '''very''' constructive. For what reason can you say I am not here to contribute?--] (]) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=] said that I only needed a new username to contribute to the encyclopedia because my first two were references to Willy on Wheels. All of my edits have been '''very''' constructive. For what reason can you say I am not here to contribute?--] (]) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=] said that I only needed a new username to contribute to the encyclopedia because my first two were references to Willy on Wheels. All of my edits have been '''very''' constructive. For what reason can you say I am not here to contribute?--] (]) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

That's not what Anthony said , Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's recount here. I was blocked initially for "not being here to contribute." Anthony admitted that this was mere prejudice against my username. That's the real reason I'm blocked. I've never made a single vandalous edit to the encyclopedia. I've only contributed in earnest. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"As you well know, there's too much history of vandalism with "Willy on Wheels" usernames for us to allow them. If you want to be a constructive contributor, sign up with a username that is not intentionally provocative (like this one) and actually be constructive rather than picking fights." That was the original declined unblock reason. All of this user's edits have been to contribute to the encyclopedia, none of them have been vandalism. To be honest, I think this user deserves a second chance, he created a username copying a notorious vandal, not knowing what it entailed, and proceeded to make edits that weren't vandalism. He overreacted, making a general comment on other users who've reverted him, not naming any of him. He didn't know any of the policies at the time, and being told to "create a new account", A delicious pot pie created one. You should give him some WP:ROPE and watch his contributions. If he is truly Willy on wheels, why is he defending himself from your accusations? He'd just create another sock puppet. But this person is trying to make a sincere contribution to the encyclopedia, and every edit he's made under this account has been constructive, he has not picked a single fight whatsoever, and the only possible conflict he's had with another editor is him reverting the warnings that Katieh5584 made on his talk page, which is perfectly allowed, and he was just sticking his head in the sand to ignore the issue, thinking that if he edited constructively, everything would be forgiven. Katieh5584 has repeatedly reverted A delicious pot pie's edits to his own user talk page, after having been warned repeatedly about not doing that. A delicious pot pie made a rash comment that didn't follow Misplaced Pages:Civility, but why should he be blocked for that? Considering that he was civil in interactions with every other editor he's communicated with, and Katieh was warned 3 times about not being allowed to revert edits made to A delicious pot pie's own talk page.

Let's go over your points for blocking him, and my points, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think he should be blocked as a:

1. Sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels
2. Sockpuppet of an impersonator of Willy on Wheels
3. Person making rude comments towards other editors
4. Person who was evading a block or ban

That sounds about right, feel free to tell me if there's any other points I missed on your end, let's review my points now.

1. This person should be unblocked, as he was a noob and didn't know what naming his account Willy on Wheels fully entailed, thinking it as a joke username.
2. He was told to create another account without the Willy on Wheels username.
3. He has made only constructive edits
4. He has mostly been civil in his interactions
5. His uncivil communications were limited to being mad about being blocked about creating another username, as being asked to do, and making a rude comment towards another editor who repeatedly violated 3RR and edit warred with him on his own talk page, the editor being warned 3 times about not being allowed to do that, getting rid of 2 of the warnings, implicitly acknowledging them, and then proceeded to edit war, even after another editor warned the editor.

Now, let me refute why each of your points aren't reasonable.

1. "Sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels" Not true, as he behaviour doesn't correspond with Willy on Wheel's behaviour, consisting mostly of subtle violations of policy, mistakes that could easily have been made by an inexperienced editor, and Willy's tactics are to full out vandalize as many articles as possible before being blocked.
2. "Sockpuppet of an impersonator of Willy on Wheels". Yes, he is another account of the same user, but the person who blocked him explicity told him to create another account, and if I was told by an administrator that doing something was OK, then I would assume I am allowed to do it.
3. "Person making rude comments towards other editors" He has gotten angry at some points, but mostly to the level of a good faith editor who doesn't understand why his edits have been reverted. As you can see for my point about his uncivil communications, they were limited to rude comments that didn't nearly escalate to the level of a violent rant.
4. "Person who was evading a block or ban". This user was never formally banned at all, and his "block" consists of a message telling him to create another account, as changing a new account's username is an undue burden when you can easily make another. He wasn't evading at all, he was told to create another account

I now ask you to tell me why he is wrong in the situation, as you can easily give him some WP:ROPE and unblock him, and if he vandalizes an article, you can block him. In fact, I'd be happy to help him with learning how to edit the encyclopedia, and to answer any questions he may have. 123chess456 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock