User talk:BLDM

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

This account is not a sockpuppet of Kkm010. I wasn't able to find an SPI for my account, so I'm not quite sure what evidence was used in applying this block. I don't see any immediate overlap in our editing patterns. Additionally, that user does not appear to be a native English speaker whereas it should be obvious that I am. Finally, the IPs associated with my account should all be university-based and in the same geographic area - I doubt there's any overlap there. BLDM (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The evidence I used to connect you to Kkm010 was behavioral (the edit-warring, overlap on Economy of India, India, etc.) Though this doesn't appear to be your first account, I'll unblock anyway given the differing locations. Sro23 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Whether you are a sock of Kkm010 or not, it does not appear that this is your first account. You've only been here for barely 25 days, but you already know how to template the regulars?[1] Furthermore, your recent edit warring on India makes me have the impression that you are not assuming good faith. Consider revealing your past accounts. MBlaze Lightning 05:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've edited from residential and mobile IPs on and off over the years - I doubt revealing those IPs (even if I could track them all down) is standard practice as it has some privacy implications. In regards to the edit warring, 3RR was not violated and this block is for being an alleged sockpuppet, so really that isn't relevant to this appeal. BLDM (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: BLDM is right that the accounts seem to be in different countries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please reveal your conflict of interest regarding Tarah Wheeler

Your repeated attempts to link to a sham lawsuit filed against this individual, even after said legal action was dismissed, demonstrate your strong conflict of interest against Ms. Wheeler. Matters that never see trial and which are brought by mentally disturbed plaintiffs by means of unprofessional law firms are not noteworthy in someone's professional biography. I do not know if you have even read the "lawsuit" or not. It makes mention of ridiculous allegations regarding sex with multiple company executives, data deleted from a corporate work endpoint which would have naturally been backed up by a company, and other claims that have no basis in fact. Because of how clearly the claims in the suit are impossible to have been based on anything that is possible, let alone provable, it is clear that this suit was filed by individuals with no chance of winning and that they did so only with the aim of damaging Ms. Wheeler's professional reputation. As such, it does not meet the standard of being noteworthy or factually valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TisiphoneFury (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point I'm almost convinced you're referring to yourself. BLDM (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't revert Moxy on his own page

Your revert of Moxy on User talk:Moxy has been reverted. He can remove whatever he likes from his page, and you don't get to restore it. I see you cheerfully remove other people's comments from your own page,[2] which you are free to do. So is Moxy. Please don't edit his page again, but take your concerns to article talk. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

This is a special case where my comment was striked out due to my account being (at the time) indefinitely blocked. I figured they may want the strikethrough removed since I'm no longer blocked.

I find it a bit odd that you're policing their talk page like this. BLDM (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it extremely odd that you take it on yourself to act according to what you "figure" Moxy may want, instead of letting Moxy themselves take care of their page. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

...you just described exactly what you're doing: not letting Moxy themselves take care of their page. Now, get off my talk page. BLDM (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There's an easier way to revert vandalism

Hi there! I'm INeedSupport! I noticed you undid three edits in a row. There is an easier way to revert all of those edits, and it only involves one undo! It's called Twinkle, and you can find out more information at WP:TWINKLE. Cheers! INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 01:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm Mdriscoll03. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to A719 road— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I'll take a wild guess and say that you thought my constructive edit was vandalism because it mentioned "Trump." Please be more mindful of your reverts, and review acceptable use of rollback in WP:RBK.

@Mdriscoll03: BLDM (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@BLDM: My apologies, I mistook your edit as vandalism. If you feel as if I abused my rollback powers you can happily bring that up to an administrator. However in the mean time if you would like me to remove this warning from your talk page please just ping me again asking for me to remove the warning a I will happily do so. Thanks, Mdriscoll03 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Teamwork!

Look at that, we CAN work together. :-) Go team! Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, things can go quite well between us so long as you don't try to remove sourced content. BLDM (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And just that quickly you killed it. I was trying to be positive. Peace out. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit to the above page. I find your mention of "consensus" somewhat frustrating, given you don't seem to have contributed to the discussion mentioned in the edit summary we were having about that very issue, where I believe a consensus was developing. I'd appreciate if you could at least chime in with your views. ~fl 23:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)