DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Squeaky Rubber Duck

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Thank you folks! All resolved I believe.

Nomination of 2019 Prince Philip road accident for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Prince Philip road accident 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/2019 Prince Philip road accident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Oathswarm (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste move

[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 2019 Prince Philip road accident a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. The correct intial step was to request undeletion to enable a page move. Just Chilling (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender 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/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

Also not clear to me but it seems that I have a lifetime prohibition to edit Wikipedia. Not 3 months. Not 6 months. Even greater than 70 years. Please do not be so harsh. In jail, it is supposed to be for reform but it is not clear what I did wrong. I did not sock puppet. However, I admit everything (not wanting to fight) and just want to know if you can not punish me so harshly. This is very stressful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

please unblock. I am not a sockpuppet but have edited in a non-warlike fashion. Someone put a checkuser on me and it did not say sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Squeaky_Rubber_Duck/Archive Please. Thank you. I hope that I am not being block as a punishment for not liking how I researched about Prince Philip, including references but I am ok with not editing that article. If you want to change the block to a week, I am ok with that. Please.

Decline reason:

As I watched the AFD unfold it was obvious to me that either User:Cheesesteak1 was your sock or that you were working in concert (WP:MEAT). The behavioural evidence is clear. Just Chilling (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Just Chilling:. Would you let an uninvolved administrator consider the unblock? Just re-open my request. I have nothing to do with Cheesestake1. But I am more worried that I can NEVER edit in Wikipedia again????? Nobody has answered that question.Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Indefinite' is not the same as 'infinite'. Normally, there is always a route back to editing. If you submit a new appeal then it will be reviewed by a different admin. However, for a fresh appeal to have a realistic chance of success you need to adress, specifically, the evidence presented in the sockpuppet investigation. Just Chilling (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm an uninvolved administrator. Who is Cheesesteak1? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: Cheesesteak is some user that I wrote to and he/she formed an opinion in an AFD. I was then accused of meatpuppetry, which is false. At worse, it's canvassing but, in reality, was just an honest message. For that, I am blocked indefinitely. I plan to be on good behavior and ask for reinstatement in a few months. It is unfair but I accept the blocking punishment. It is also unfair that somebody in Wikipedia is trying to frame me by creating fake sockpuppets, like User:Janet Bourne . Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

[edit]
cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

I am extremely concerned that somebody in Wikipedia are trying to frame me by creating sockpuppets, such as Janet Bourne. I request NOT UNBLOCK OF ME, but checkuser investigation of Janet Bourne and unblock of her because she is not my sockpuppet. However, warn her that trying to impersonate being my sockpuppet is forbidden. You see, I want to act very responsibly so that in a few months, I can ask for reinstatement. I protest that somebody is trying to ruin me by pretending to be a sock of mine. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, as you state you will ask for 'reinstatement' later. When you do, then you can discuss what you claim. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

>>> @331dot:I intend to ask in more than 6 months time. I don't know if the checkuser can look back 7-8 months. Will you assume at that time that I was framed? The alternative is for you to state here "IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED THAT THIS USER WAS FRAMED AND JANET BOURNE IS NOT HIS/HER SOCK WHEN CONSIDERING HIS/HER REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT WHEN IT IS MADE IN A FEW MONTHS"


INFO FOR THE ADMIN and NinjaRobotPirate

I created an article about Prince Philip's traffic accident, which was deleted. I was then blocked. Some time later, this Janet Bourne created a very similar article, using some of the same text. @NinjaRobotPirate: She was blocked as my sock. I am being framed. I have no desire to write about Prince Philip and don't want to jeopardize my Wiki standing with a sock. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

Request limited unblock ONLY for the purpose of contacting the checkuser. Thus far, I have acted very responsibly about my block because I intend to ask for reinstatement in a few months. I am very concerned that someone is trying to frame me by creating socks so they can claim "see, cannot unblock because kept creating socks". User:Janet Bourne was blocked as my sock but I am being framed. If I am unblocked, I will not edit except to clear this Janet Bourne accusation by contacting the checkuser and then, if desired, I will ask an admin to reblock me until I ask for reinstatement under the Standard Offer. Please note that my request is more stringent than the Standard Offer. The usual Standard Offer is just a request but this unblock request is a way to show honesty and that I keep my word above and beyond demonstrated by Standard Offer applicants because I would then ask to be blocked for a few months after I clear myself of being framed.

Decline reason:

No need to unblock you for that. You still have access to this talk page so still have the ability to contact the checkuser. Yamla (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Yamla: In accordance with your instructions, would you please ask a checkuser to come. Thank you. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no point in a CU assessment because CUs cannot prove a negative. Your socks were blocked on behavioural evidence. If, for example, you edited from other locations, eg a computer in a public library, there would be nothing for a CU to examine. Just Chilling (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: But it could prove a "not positive". I am being framed. I did not create this Janet Bourne sock. What if the Checkuser showed that Janet is editing in Russia or Afghanistan? That would be good evidence of "not positive". Wikipedia should not be so cruel. Look two administrators who deny an unblock request. Isn't that behavioral evidence that both administrators are socks since both are agreeing and, according to Just Chilling, the Checkuser cannot prove the two administrators are innocent? I cannot believe that cruelty is the official Wikipedia policy. I am just trying to clear my name. Please help me or give advice. Do not say "just kill yourself". Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer request

[edit]

WP:STANDARD is an allowed mechanism where blocked users can be unblocked.

I have waited longer than 6 months. I have not committed any Wikipedia misconduct.

Earlier this year, I edited an article about the Road Traffic Accident of Prince Philip. It was carefully written but deleted. Sometime later, a user named User:Janet Bourne recreated the article. It was deleted and I was blocked as a sockpuppet. I had NOTHING to do with the article creation. I begged Wikipedia to run a checkuser on User:Janet Bourne but I was met with scorn, mocked, and no investigation was done. I had NOTHING to do with this but I will accept punishment that User talk:Janet Bourne was my sockpuppet even though this is not true.

Please, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, please unblock me and I will resume editing in a responsible and careful manner. Thank you.

@Coffee: @Foxj: are asked to unblock but anyone may do it. I certify that I will respond to your unblock by acting in a responsible manner in Wikipedia and will report to you after 30 days about my progress, which presumably will be beyond reproach.

Thank you. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

request unblock ONLY to contact administrators who are open to the standard offer. Will not edit until a standard offer is approved. So while I've made comments below on how I'll abide by a Standard Offer and will abide by additional measures that I describe, I am ONLY asking to be unblocked to contact administrators willing to use the Standard Offer. There are such administrators. Please allow this. Thank you.Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not how it works. ST47 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

cross icon
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).

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

Request reason:

I was told "That's not how it works" when I asked for an unblock so that I can request a Standard Offer from a list of administrators that do Standard Offer unblocks. Ok, then please YOU unblock me under the terms of Standard Offer but also note that I voluntarily added some conditions that I self impose on myself and will follow, such as reporting to the unblocking administrator of my progress 30 days and 90 days after unblock. This is a very good indication that I will be a good editor and that there will be easy recourse. For example, if I don't report, then I could be blocked for the reason stated. I kindly ask that you not deny this request and, if you are prone to, then leave this request open for another person to approve it. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I will not unblock you while you are creating new accounts. SQLQuery me! 22:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Someone actually did run a check on Janet Bourne back in April 2019. It wasn't me, so I'm not sure what the result was. So, what's your connection to Aerostar3 (talk · contribs) and Cheesesteak1 (talk · contribs)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: none. I looked at Aerostar3's contributions because I never heard of that name and all those articles are foreign and unfamiliar.
As far as "someone actually did run a check on Janet Bourne..." that was the reason I was blocked and you, NinjaRobotPirate are the blocking administrator but admits he/she blocked me without knowing the results. Now, the checkuser results are so old that nobody has it unless they violated Wikipedia privacy rules and kept the information in their own home outside of Wikipedia control.
I am so sorry that I'm in this Wikipedia mess. I now know what I did wrong. I edited something less than completely favorable about Prince Philip and that can make people mad. They want to delete the article then pick on me. From now on, I promise to stay away from anything controversial.
If it is required to make a confession that I am Janet Bourne, I am not but am willing to make a false confession. Since Janet Bourne is blocked, she cannot do anything stupid, like make death threats or bomb threats, so my falsely admitting to be her, that can't happen to me. But really, please don't require that I make a false confession. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'REMEMBER/SEE MY INITIAL REQUEST FOR THE STANDARD OFFER In addition to the standard offer, I made a promise to report to the unblocking administrator after 30 days to report my behavior. I expect to present an excellent report of nice behavior!Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't unblock me, please follow the More Than Standard Offer, which I agree to be blocked for one year (until April) and will report my behavior to the unblocking administrator not only 30 days after unblock but also after 90 days after unblock. This shows that I am a very responsible person. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and kindness. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. If you contend this, then name the editor and the article that both of us edited. I am NOT Janet Bourne but only will admit to it if a false confession is necessary. I have never heard of this Aerostar nor am I familiar with any articles that he/she writes. I state for the record that I wish to be unblocked so I can use ONE account. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]