User talk:Ramhorbronc

Las Vegas area high school athetics

Let me know of any significant results in Las Vegas area high school sports and I will edit the appropriate pages. Ramhorbronc (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 28 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

For the record, I am not a sockpuppet. I am User:Ramhorbronc. As you can see I joined in October 2017 and did so because there was much needed editing to be done concerning Las Vegas area high school football. I have not edited in that area as of late because high school football is over. I was going to update Bishop Gorman's article to indicate there championship. I apologize for any confusion caused by my edit of the Ra article. What this exercise has demonstrated is the arbitrary manner in which "investigations" of this type are conducted at Wikipedia. To wit, there was no investigation. A person who no doubt was watching the Ancient Egyptian articles noted that I used the same terminology as this banned user who I am baselessly accused of being and actually fell for the test. It was myself who added my name to the list of possible sockpuppets for that user. That is not the behavior of a person trying to hide, it is me gauging the reaction of the staff to an obvious interloper. Anyone can put the language "Osiris-Orion, son of Ra, (Christ the Logos) into an article. It does not mean that the person is a sockpuppet of the original offender. Context is important and anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together should have seen right through me. I find it somewhat ridiculous to have to prove that I am not a sockpupper when the burden should be on the accuser or person enacting the block to prove that I am. No proof has been proffered. I have learned what I set out to ascertain - that Wiki admins do not do a through job in investigations and act capriciously and arbitrarily. I have apologized for this behavior and for the record will not engage in it again. What this exercise has demonstrated is the arbitrary manner in which "investigations" of this type are conducted at Wikipedia. My experiment concluded, I request that the block be lifted (or at least be set for a definite period of time so that I may commence with productive contribution to the project. Thank you, Ramhorbronc Ramhorbronc (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you were lying to make a WP:POINT? Or are you lying now? Meh. Either way, you've failed to convince me the block is inappropriate. In fact, you seem to be trying to prove that the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because I have been baselessly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Ararat arev. I am in fact not a sockpuppet of that individual nor of any other registered user. I am User:Ramhorbronc. I request the block reversal (or the resetting of the block to a definite time) precisely because the reasons for the block are based on assumptions that are non-factual. At worst my editing should result in a temp ban. The user who first accused me of being a sock and the user who blocked me are both guilty of violating WP:DON'T BE QUICK TO ASSUME THAT SOMEONE IS A SOCKPUPPET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet#Accounts_exhibiting_similar_behavior

An accusation does not equal evidence, and virtually nothing was done after User:A. Parrot erroneously concluded that I was the individual in question to obtain any support for the charge. I am not Armenian, know next to nothing about Armenians, have only a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Egyptian mythology and do not think that Osiris and Christ are one and the same. This entire episode has bee sloppily mishandled by the administrators.

To reiterate, since I am not a sockpuppet of Ararat arev or any other registered user, the criteria for the stated reason of the block has not been met. I apologize for any confusion or disruption my emulation of that user caused and will not engage in that form of editing again. I request that the block be lifted or set for a definite period so that I may proceed to contribute to the encyclopedia.

Thank you,

Ramhorbronc Ramhorbronc (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hardly a baseless accusation, when you yourself appear to have added your username to the sockpuppet list, for reasons which, if true, I find difficult to understand. It may be that you have formed an erroneous concept of the way in which this website is policed and maintained. Or I might be missing the point. Or your excuse may be non-factual.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:46, 1 February 2018 (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.

Your link is wrong; you probably mean to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet#Accounts_exhibiting_similar_behavior but can just use the shortcut, WP:COPYCAT if you like. You are welcome to edit your unblock request if you like (at least, until someone reviews it). You are also welcome to blank this particular paragraph regardless of whether or not you correct the link. --Yamla (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bone Game

The article Bone Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable "rivalry" this is a high school football article and the single source is not enough to confer notability. Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]