User talk:Factsforsure44: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:59, 15 February 2022

Katherine Delmar Burke School

You appear (very clearly) to be the IP that was just partial-blocked from the page Katherine Delmar Burke School for two weeks. Do not edit the page again until those two weeks expire. This is your only warning before I flag this account for block evasion(which will still likely happen even if I do not report it). SpinningCeres 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for admin: block log of relevant IP range here. SpinningCeres 23:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Factsforsure44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here This is ridiculous and is an attempt to censor.

Decline reason:

Please log out to appeal the block. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (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.

You'll have to appeal the block logged out on the IP range, since this account isn't technically under the sanction(but would be if reported as block evasion). SpinningCeres 23:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into it and couldn't figure it out. This is a hard project to contribute to.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was:

Please see WP:PROXYING; you should appeal the block instead of trying to circumvent it.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Factsforsure44/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Factsforsure44/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Factsforsure44! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to school's own website

Please extremely limit the number of references to burke's own website, as it is self-published material and a primary source. School Wikipedia articles should rarely(if at all) reference the school's own website. SpinningCeres 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I trusted you were more than just content blocking it would mean more. I can't add to the talk page so left notes on your page as well as some of the editors you asked to help suppress this info recently.Factsforsure44 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Factsforsure44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please look at the mass reverts as a way to suppress info. This is beyond frustrating. My edits are constructive and well sourced as shown in my sandbox. I'd like a higher review if possibleFactsforsure44 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looks likely that what Casualdejekyll said is accurate. If that's not the case, please open a new unblock request and specifically note that. Yamla (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (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.

You were partially blocked as an IP, created a new account, and re-engaged in the same exact actions that led to a partial block, which only shows a lack of learning on what you did wrong and a refusal to improve. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a defense that got lost in cross edits. I did not create a username to evade the block. I created a username at the request of @willondon. I have read everything requested and this material was formatted exactly how the template on the talk page provided by one of the critical editors.Factsforsure44 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was create content to Wikipedia's standards.^[1] Please judge the content, not the person. And please escalate however possible. That content^[2] deserves to be seen and edited like anything else on the siteFactsforsure44 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Re "I did not create a username to evade the block. I created a username at the request of @willondon", this much is true. I advised it here, and have recently outlined my thinking at admin Tol's talk page. That said, I don't believe the switch from IPs to registered account is an attempt to decieve or evade a block; but I do think activity under this account name can certainly be judged on its own merits. _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this will go through. I appealed.Factsforsure44 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(note: composed during edit conflict, unaware of "also" section below)

I doubt it will. The fundamental judgement of an appeal is: if I lift this block? will there be more disruption of Wikipedia? That's it. And that often boils down to, has the editor shown signs that they understand now what the problem was? Unfortunately, I don't see it.

My advice to you: (1) pay attention to the advice that you are given here, (2) realise that nobody knows who you are here, and feedback is not a personal attack on you, it's about the edits, (3) back away, take a break from it, and reflect that you've taken a number of runs at it, and hit a brick wall at every turn, (4) and then consult a friend or advisor in "real life" who can maybe provide some insight on why everybody seems to be against you, and your edits aren't "sticking". _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(And after reading the "Also" section, I hereby drop the mic.)

Also

My appeal was based on the hard-knock school and how a handful of editors have been unduly hard on me (calling me incompetent; untrustworthy; etc) and how with the timing of this after the page views unexpectedly shot up to 2500 before the edit war I find it suspicious that this resistance isn't reputation-based on behalf of the school.

Someone even reached out to the teahouse where the nice editors are but they said this was an admin issue.

I was being threatened by @spinningceres from the start without any warning about what it was about. Then the threat was withdrawn, but it was still there. I've been told that I both have conflict of interest editing and school puffery. Most importantly the last entry was specifically formatted to the school template; yet, someone comments on it like I am not following it. This is editors suppressing info @willondon @spinningceres etc. Factsforsure44 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also @willondon I wasn't rewriting the site. You brought it back to the stub and then I was adding in reliable info. No editor was constructive and there was a good deal of collusion -- as the record shows. There was no content on the site. I added a reference that was needed (Miss Burke's) and provided good content yet I am blocked indefinitely. This is too heavy handed as I've said before. No one else contributed. Please note that.Factsforsure44 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Hamlin's site points to the school. I don't believe the prevailing winds against using links to the school since it could be based on protecting the reputation of the school rather than on verifiable info. I lost a sandbox as well. Biting the newbie. Factsforsure44 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Willondon @SpinningCeres since you didn't do it right casualdejekyll 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few final thoughts:

I did not threaten you, I warned you not to continue disruptive editing, which has been being reverted since May.
"Collusion" on Wikipedia is called consensus. Please stop accusing people of acting in bad faith.
As stated before, Wikipedia does not and will not consider information only supported by a article subject's own website reliable. Every other sentence being sourced by a RS does not make inappropriately sourced content ok. Wikipedia's policies consciously and explicitly state that all facts about a person/place/thing do not automatically qualify for inclusion in articles.
Some non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis(as in not wikipedia.org) may have less rules on reliable and primary sources. I encourage you to search for some like that focused on California or the bay-area, and improve Burke's article there.

SpinningCeres 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response

@spinningceres I counted the sources today before revert and there were approximately ten from Burke's website and fifty from other reliable sources. I've read through everything people suggested. You did threaten me and I made it known I felt threatened. That's in the talk page. Please refrain from adding inaccurate info to my talk page.Factsforsure44 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. casualdejekyll 20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal did not work

The appeal to unblock did not work. I will not write more to the editor above after being advised to walk away. I do think that the amount of removals that are baby in the bathwater deserve a look and pulled up somehow no edits for the user above (although they did threaten on the talk as can be shown if anyone went into the nitty gritty.) @Willondon's edits did come up and were five percent and all removing large amount of copy that genuine good faith work had gone into 5d358ce14e63b259b6390b5255dd3629 Factsforsure44 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_Delmar_Burke_School&diff=1072038510&oldid=1072037739

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_Delmar_Burke_School&diff=1072038445&oldid=1072037739

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 20:58, 15 February 2022 edit Factsforsure44 (talk \| contribs) 122 edits →Appeal did not work: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:59, 15 February 2022 edit undo Factsforsure44 (talk \| contribs) 122 edits →Appeal did not work Next edit →
Line 79:		Line 79:
	== Appeal did not work ==		== Appeal did not work ==

	The appeal to unblock did not work. I will not write more to the editor above after being advised to walk away. I do think that the amount of removals that are baby in the bathwater deserve a look and pulled up somehow no edits for the user above (although they did threaten on the talk as can be shown if anyone went into the nitty gritty.) @Willondon's edits did come up and were five percent and all removing large amount of copy that genuine good faith work had gone into ~~<ref>~~5d358ce14e63b259b6390b5255dd3629~~</ref>~~ [[User:Factsforsure44\|Factsforsure44]] ([[User talk:Factsforsure44#top\|talk]]) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)		The appeal to unblock did not work. I will not write more to the editor above after being advised to walk away. I do think that the amount of removals that are baby in the bathwater deserve a look and pulled up somehow no edits for the user above (although they did threaten on the talk as can be shown if anyone went into the nitty gritty.) @Willondon's edits did come up and were five percent and all removing large amount of copy that genuine good faith work had gone into [[5d358ce14e63b259b6390b5255dd3629]] [[User:Factsforsure44\|Factsforsure44]] ([[User talk:Factsforsure44#top\|talk]]) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)