User talk:Brain.wilson

Welcome!

Hello, Brain.wilson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Allison mark, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Eeekster (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Allison mark

A tag has been placed on Allison mark requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Martin Heidegger that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. --Snowded ^TALK 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not "attack" anyone. You repeatedy attacked me as a "sock puppet" and refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page, claiming that "the debate has moved on". Brain.wilson (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The debate had moved on, you needed to engage with where that debate was, rather than something which has already stale. Reading the talk page is not an unreasonable burden. Given the recent history of the page, and the fact that your behaviour matched (and matches) that of our serial sock my suspicion was reasonable. The way to overcome that is to act in a civilised fashion, strike your nonsensical accusations and discuss content only. --Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My rebuttal was made on Feb. 17th to a post made on Feb. 13th. The debate had certainly not moved on, despite your assertions to the contrary. In fact, on Feb. 22nd, your yourself wrote "I'm happy for the lede to reference Nazi not National Socialism and open to a quote. However we need to clear out the sock and then discuss". Since you admit that the subject was still open to discussion on Feb.22nd, in what way had the debate moved on?

As to the reasonableness of your suspicion of sock puppetry, I am not a sock puppet. So regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable your suspicion is, you are wrong. And, rather than respond substantively to my points, you choose to simply attack me as a sock puppet.

I have tried repeatedly to discuss content, yet you consistently respond with personal attacks completely devoid of substance. There is nothing whatsoever uncivilized about my behavior. Perhaps you need to stop worrying so much about the behavior of those that you disagree with and worry more about your own.Brain.wilson (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from a reasonable suspicion that you were the latest instantiation of a serial sock I have made no personal attacks of any nature. If you can find an example feel free to point it out. That does not compare favourably with you suggesting that I was attempting to "obfuscate Heigegger's involvement with Nazism". I suggest you pay some attention to what is said on the talk page and also to your own behaviour. If you don't then sooner or later you will fall foul of wikipedia process. --Snowded ^TALK 05:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in the posts on this page alone, you have accused me of engaging in suspicious behavior, of being uncivilized, of making nonsensical accusations, and of failing to discuss content. Perhaps these are not personal attacks in your mind, but they are in mine.

As for my claim that you attempt to "obfuscate Heigegger's involvement with Nazism", your refusal to respond substantively to my arguments leaves me with no alternative conclusion.

Rather than continuing your repeated threats about what will happen if I do not behave as you "suggest", I suggest you worry about your own behaviour and respond substantively to what is said on the talk page. Brain.wilson (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Cheney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I have no liking for Dick Cheney, but Wikipedia has strict standards on biographies. I suggest you spend some time using the help pages referenced above and learn how to edit here. --Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 03:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. I apparently am accused of being a sock puppet simply because I agree with another editor that Nazis should be called "Nazis" not "National Socialists". Since I am not a sock puppet, you could not possibly have any evidence that I am a sock puppet.

Decline reason:

I've double checked the checkuser findings, and they are as described. Checkuser verified sock puppet of banned or blocked editor. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:41, 3 March 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You can keep repeating it as often as you like. I am not a sock puppet, so you could not possibly confirm that I am one. Apparently, the claim that anyone can edit Wikipedia is a lie.

Decline reason:

Checkuser results are fairly reliable.  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

If something is "fairly reliable", it means that it is sometimes wrong. This is one of those times. I am not a sock puppet. How do you handle those situations in which CheckUser is wrong?

Decline reason:

This is your last chance. You can post a substantive unblock request or lose the privilege of editing this page. TNXMan 20:25, 3 March 2010 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have no idea what you mean by a substantive unblock request. You have not provided me with any substantive information to rebut. You say that I am a sock puppet. I tell you that I am not. What information do I need to provide to you to provide a substantive unblock request?

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.

Administrator use only:

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=I have no idea what you mean by a substantive unblock request. You have not provided me with any substantive information to rebut. You say that I am a sock puppet. I tell you that I am not. What information do I need to provide to you to provide a substantive unblock request? |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=I have no idea what you mean by a substantive unblock request. You have not provided me with any substantive information to rebut. You say that I am a sock puppet. I tell you that I am not. What information do I need to provide to you to provide a substantive unblock request? |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=I have no idea what you mean by a substantive unblock request. You have not provided me with any substantive information to rebut. You say that I am a sock puppet. I tell you that I am not. What information do I need to provide to you to provide a substantive unblock request? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You were  Confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock. And please stop spamming my blog. Regards, –MuZemike 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not be confirmed as a sock, since I am not a sock puppet. Perhaps there is something wrong with your confirmation methodology.Brain.wilson (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did post a comment to your blog, asking why you blocked me. I did not see any other way to contact you. You have blocked me (permanently) for being something that I am not. I would think Wikipedia admins would be averse to censorship. But, apparently they are not only not averse to it, they actively participate in it.

In any event, sending you a message via your blog would not be characterized as "spamming" under any reasonable definition of the word.

You could have emailed me via the Special:EmailUser feature. However, you know my response so don't bother doing that. –MuZemike 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not know about the Special:EmailUser feature and when I click on the link you provided it takes me to a page titled "No target", so I guess that I still do not know about the Special:EmailUser feature. And no, I have no idea what your response will be. I would think that wrongly blocking someone for being something that they are not would be an egregious violation of the spirit of an organization such as Wikipedia. I would think that you would provide the specific evidence that you claim confirms that I am a sock puppet, so that I would have a chance to rebut it. But, I guess I am wrong about that. Brain.wilson (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My response would be and is "I am not going to unblock you". End of story. And quit spamming my blog. That is the last time you do that. –MuZemike 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That would not really be responsive to the question "Why did you block my account?". But, then, you don't really care about being responsive, do you.

You may also appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee (where they may review any possible CheckUser misconduct) at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. –MuZemike 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)