Even the company website has it that way. [1] -- NeilN talk to me 15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Then why don't you two go through and put your "fixes" on all the other ones that had already been that way for eons, instead of just singling mine out?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( talk) 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No, @ NeilN:, I wasn't asking you to go change the other ones to "WurliTzer"; I was asking you why you don't go "fix" the other "wrong" ones ("WurliTzer," like the logo) to your "correct" style, "Wurlitzer," like you were doing to mine. If you're going to do that to mine, then why not go through the entire article to be consistent?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, @ NeilN:, for your good explanation. So if I understand right, then the takeaway from that is that most Wikipedians are just lazy brats, but you appeased me by taking my suggestion (once you understood what I meant). Right?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( talk) 05:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @ NeilN:.
Um... okay, @ Binksternet:, I guess I won't do that. But would you not mind please telling me why fixing grammar errors in talk pages should be off-limits even though people who write in those talk pages are other editors and they write for articles in a place where they should be glad to have someone helping them keep correct grammar, word-usage, spelling, and punctuation, etc.?
Also: then why is it "okay" for someone else to move my stuff around and add indentation for me, etc. (not that I'm offended by that, but just for comparison in the sake of the discussion)?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( talk) 09:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( talk) 17:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) vvvv
Hmm, that's interesting, @ NeilN:. Well, by "expert on writing," I meant "good enough that it doesn't have any mistakes that make them sound non-pro." I'd think that if they wanted to stay that good, then they should want to practice it in a talk page and not be annoyed if someone else helps them along there. I guess I'll just never understand why they wouldn't. Plus, if they aren't that good in the talk pages, then how do they suddenly become that good when it's time to "go pro" for the articles themselves?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( talk) 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia 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.
Bbb23 (
talk)
05:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
IHateYouTyrannousAddies ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hey, @ PhilKnight:, when I had my two accounts (the other with the name that looked a lot like this one but just had the typo) and then saw that that looked like a sock puppet, I understood that. And thanks for working with me on that. So then I was using only this account, and I thought we were done. But now, suddenly I've found myself blocked again! But for what?
Wait, as you read this, please don't think, "TL;DR"! All of this stuff needs to be said in order for the points to be made.
Oh, and now I've seen that even another admin, bratland, has suspected that somehow I could've been the 2 IPs from Spain who edited
Tire after I got done with it. (I see myself in the SPI now, but couldn't before), but I already wrote a rebuttal on the talk page of one as to why I couldn't be that one, but he doesn't believe me; however, he never said anything on that page, so it's like he's trying to play his own stealth game. How would I get an IP address from Spain, and what motivation would I have to continue to edit that even after an admin showed why I was breaking a Wikipedia rule there? He doesn't even believe that I would've gone back to just see what might've been going on at that article after I edited it before--as if he never does that.
Those edits are purely coincidental to have come right after mine there, but I promise that I had nothing to do with them. I don't know a single person there That's just proof that some editors are too happy to jump to conclusions!
I can't even defend myself against him on the SPI even though I can now find myself there, obviously because of this block! WP should have a policy that being blocked doesn't stop you from responding at SPI or ANI in order to defend yourself! Why couldn't I see myself on the SPI right after those incidents on "Tire"?
Now, as for the first other admin I mentioned, there's this:
I looked through what I had written and found the place where another admin seems to have confused me for another editor just because... I looked at connected talk pages and I guess I sound like him or something just because we both have similar concerns about a problem with one of the sources in that article, as if when 2 or more people discuss against the same problem, they both have the same writing style. Well, how are you both supposed to discuss the same problem without sounding like each other to some degree? So that admin doesn't seem to understand that more than one person can have the same ideas as another (which is where I thought consensus came from... but maybe not... [shrug...]).
This other admin claims here that I created this account only to abuse the site. I'm confused about how that could be the case. Does my list of contributions have abusive things in them, or isn't it made up of improvements? So even if I had had multiple accounts, where could those edits have amounted to abuse?
I looked at that other editor (the one I got compared to) for a bit, but I have a concern that he/she didn't seem to have there (unless I missed it), which was that there was a weird statement of the abbreviation of the name of the programming block. That just seems cheesy to me.
As for our shared concern (consensus) against the one citation, the problem with that one is that it makes the false claim (yes, from a big source, but even the biggest companies can make mistakes too) that Saturday morning cartoons are completely gone ("R.I.P., Saturday morning cartoons"). Just like that other editor thinks (actually, it looks like even some others think the same basic thing), I had seen another channel that still has some Saturday morning cartoons--not in a block, but still, they are cartoons on TV on a Saturday morning (even channels that aren't the Cartoon Network, etc.). But then another thing is that they seem to feel like it would be the end of the world for Wikipedia if they don't use that corrupt source there (instead of none, since they apparently can't find a good replacement). There's just this one stronghold guy there (spshu) who seems to think he's the boss of that article (with the way he was reacting when he warred with someone--not me--recently), and that if he doesn't make sure that corrupt citation is still there, his life will be over!
Last time I checked, wasn't the lack of source better than a corrupt one (no matter how reliable that given company had been in the past), just like the case is with so many other things here (not every tiny mention of anything has a citation attached)?
And in case anyone thinks I was edit-warring, I should say that I wasn't doing that. I was careful to use the B/R/D cycle. I made my Bold edit, but then it got reverted. So then I Reverted it back, and then went to the talk page and started a Discussion (well, actually two; one for the other concern too). So was I edit-warring? No. Was I abusing Wikipedia while sounding like someone else? I don't think so, but maybe I need help identifying it if I really was, but that other admin didn't say what, obviously. I just know that I got compared and it was thought that because I brought up the same concern, somehow it can't be like other situations where someone has the same idea as someone else. So now it seems like if I ever get unblocked and then try to edit that again, he'll just think again that I was abusing the system somehow. I really don't get it.
Besides that, shouldn't I have gotten a warning from that admin about what his concern is before just being blocked--especially indefinitely? The problem is that where I've read, a few admins (or at least a mix of admins and regular users) like to just assume sock-puppetry without really investigating. That seems common here.
Anyway, a block to me isn't necessary because I can prove that I wasn't warring, which then means that I wouldn't vandalize or otherwise disrupt that article (or any other article, for that matter).
So... what do you think you want to do here? Wouldn't it make sense to unblock me? Also, will you please look into helping others understand the problem with that corrupt citation at One Magnificent Morning ("RIP...") so that it doesn't keep getting used (since it errantly states the disappearance of all Saturday morning cartoons)?
I agree that if unblocked, I'll do my best to follow the rules. But there is no rule to not remove corrupt citations, correct?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies (
talk)
08:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've run a checkuser, and your account is Technically indistinguishable from
IDriveAStickShift (
talk ·
contribs). In this context, I'm declining you request to be unblocked.
PhilKnight (
talk)
11:11, 10 January 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.
Hey, @ PhilKnight:, how does that work, then, since people's addresses can change, and I'd never know if mine now would be the same as it was 2 days ago (which would then have me wondering how our addresses could be the same if there are so many for the systems to choose from at any given point)?
Also, Phil, let's set up a scenario for this next question, just for the discussion. Will you please try to follow the logic with me through a chain of events that should help determine why I should not be blocked? (This is kind of long, but again, I can't think of how to shorten it while still making all the necessary points.)
Okay, so even if, in this scenario, I were that Stickshift guy, then true, that could make me a sockpuppet of him or her--but only if I was abusing the system with the other account. Right? So then the question would be this: What abuse would I have been causing?
Let's say that your answer is that the other admin thinks that was block-evasion, since I see that Stickshift is blocked too. Then we would need to determine why that user was blocked. In reading that user's talk page, one might see that it was because he or she was editing without being logged in. Right? Well, that's the claim, anyway.
So then, in that case, if the only thing Shift was doing was editing while not being logged in, then that, also is not abusing the system, which then would be saying that Stick wasn't sockpuppeting either, which then means that even Stick's block was invalid also. Are ya following me so far?
So then even if running a checkuser thing makes an admin think that Stick and I are the same person, but if Stick wasn't abusing the system by just editing while logged in and you think I'm that person, then this account should not be blocked because Stick's account was never supposed to have been blocked, since Stick says he/she was only editing without being logged in, which is allowed.
So the only thing left for us to determine, then, Phil, is: if StickShift was really sockpuppeting (which again means that while having 2 or more accounts IS allowed as long as you don't abuse the system), that means he/she had to have been doing something to abuse the system while editing without being logged in. Right? Still following me?
Then that means the last question in the chain is this: What was StickShift doing that has the admins think he/she was abusing the system while editing without being logged in, which then created this chain of my being blocked? If we determine, then, that Stick was never to have been blocked for simply editing without being logged in, then that chain to me means that even if I am that person (again, assuming just for this scenario that I even am that person just because somehow our IP addresses could've matched at some point, according to checkuser), I was not abusing the system because I was not evading a block because Shift's block wasn't supposed to have happened in the first place. Following me still? Make sense?
Then what was Stick doing to abuse the system during editing while not being logged in? Nothing? That means I shouldn't be blocked either, because there was no legitimate block that I was evading. Right? Then that means the thing to do would be to unblock us, right? (If we're the same person, then having both the accounts is allowed as long as they don't abuse the system. This, again, is just for the discussion.)
If not, then what was Stickshift doing that abused the system during editing while not being logged (which, certainly you could tell me without breaking some sort of privacy rule if you indeed think we're the same person)?
IHateYouTyrannousAddies (
talk)
17:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)