User talk:WikiFlows
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, WikiFlows, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
[edit]
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Indiggo. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiggo77. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiFlows (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The information on Indiggo's page regarding America's Got Talent is inaccurate, i.e. Piers Morgan is misquoted and what actually happened is reflected inaccurately. What Piers Morgan actually said was: "You have got everything going for you, apart from your terrible voices.", after which the crowd started booing in response to his remark and shouting "Vegas! Vegas!" This went on for some time, in addition to Indiggo making their case against his assessment, after which Piers Morgan finally budged and allowed Indiggo to go to the next round in Vegas.[1]
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. Max Semenik (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2015 (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.
WikiFlows (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am new to Wikipedia and had not fully read it's policies for editing. I now see that the edits I have made were not in line with Wikipedia's policies. Rather than just deleting an entire section, I should have left a comment in order to try to reach consensus on this particular topic. I obviously will do so in the future. From now on, I intend to make valuable, factual and evidence based contributions to Wikipedia which are fully in line with its policies and will help improving information offered through Wikipedia. I will make sure not to cause any (further) damage or disruption to any content on Wikipedia. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not the same person as nor affiliated with Indiggo77.
Decline reason:
Based on a combination of technical and behavioural evidence, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (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.
WikiFlows (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If possible, I would like to know on what technical and behavioral evidence you are basing your declination of my request to be unblocked. I believe I have shown remorse with respect to my earlier actions - actions of which I was not aware at the time being inappropriate - and that I now understand what Wikipedia's policies are. I have been wrongfully associated with some third party that goes by the name of Indiggo77. I do not know this party, I am not it's sockpuppet, and I strongly disapprove of its past actions. I kindly request you to reconsider unblocking my account. I only wish to make true and valid contributions to Wikipedia. If I can do anything to prove my good faith and intentions, please let me know what that could be.
Decline reason:
According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiggo77/Archive technical evidence makes a connection to other socks "likely". The behavioural evidence would be that the content you removed happens to be just the same as the one previously removed by multiple other socks. Huon (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2015 (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.
WikiFlows (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your response. I understand that this may seem suspicious. However, this also may have something to do with the fact that this particular information on Indiggo's page is not accurate. If you watch the video on Youtube, which link I have previously included in my edit, you will see for yourself that Piers Morgan is misquoted, and that certain facts are not reflected accurately. Anyway, I only take responsibility for my own actions. I have nothing to do with edits and/or actions made by any other party, such as Indiggo77. It only has been my intention to repair the aforementioned inaccuracy. I now see that I should not have deleted the information, but seek consensus on what it should be instead. I would appreciate it enormously if you could unblock my editing rights, so I can prove my goodwill. Thank you.
Decline reason:
An single purpose account whose only interest appears to be adding original research to one page is of no use to this project. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:01, 1 July 2015 (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.
- Wikipedia does not accept original research based on primary sources. It favors secondary sources which interpret the primary sources for us. In other words, an editor's understanding of the video is irrelevant -- what matters is how professional sources understood it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiFlows (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your answers. So, if I understand correctly - and with all due respect - Wikipedia may favor secondary sources, interpreting primary sources, even though such interpretation is factually incorrect? Assuming that it is in Wikipedia's interest that its content is truthful (and not "only" a database of - sometimes factually incorrect - interpretations of primary sources by secondary sources), is there a way to "repair" such inaccuracies, other than by referring to another (accurate) secondary source interpreting a primary source? Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Wikipedia, and I support its policies, but shouldn't there also be a way to limit factual inaccuracies as much as possible? Just wondering. In any case, I am not (or, now that I understand Wikipedia's policies better, no longer) interested in adding original research in breach of Wikipedia's policies, whether it is to only one or to many pages. I understand that this may have appeared so after the one and only edit I have made before I got blocked, but I have learnt from this error and I can assure you it won't happen again. I kindly request you to reconsider unblocking me. Thank you.
Decline reason:
And once again, you refuse to address the reason for this account's block - sockuppetry. Talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2015 (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.
- Given the long history of sockpuppetry of that page, I went ahead and protected it for three more months. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let me put it this way: Whom should we trust, a generally reliable secondary source or some random Wikipedia editor who says the source got it wrong but can't show a better source to support the claim? Verifiability, not truth has long been a motto of Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: your email
[edit]You were blocked on both technical and behaviorial evidence. You can try BASC. Max Semenik (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)