User talk:PPdd

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Hey man. I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed at your commitment to improving Wikipedia and how quickly you're seeking to better understand the community as you've jumped into really tough topics. Most newish editors would have flamed out in the process of just one of the flaps you have waded into headfirst. Heck, the username discussion alone would have been enough to chase many editors away. Most impressive though has been your clear desire to learn and better understand norms as you have worked through these issues. WLU summed it up well: "I can't wait to see what PPdd's edits look like a year from now, I expect them to be stellar." I may not always agree with you, but you've certainly earned this barnstar for your commitment thus far. Cheers! Zachlipton (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for continuous irony --Logicalgregory (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. But shouldn't it be a barnstar for bad humor, or maybe for the humor "phlegm"? PPdd (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plain English

Hi, I saw your changes to Prunus fasciculata, it needed some work! Just a suggestion that you might want to consider using Wiktionary for links for Latin and English terms, for example, "exceptionally" comes up rather nicely with this coding: exceptionally. Carry on the good work! Nadiatalent (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was unaware of how to so link. Is there any relationship between Wictionary and the various glossaries such as Glossary of botanical terms? A few weeks ago at WikiProject Plants, I had raised two issues: one about merging the various plant term glossaries, which was taken right up by members; and two about illustrations for plant terms, for which there was discussion regarding WP:OR and WP:Copyright, and some very nice images made by editors were pointed to. I plan to spend the next few months making anatomical illustrations for a comprehensive list of illustrations for the terms. Are my own drawings appropriate for Wictionary, too? Is there an "artist task force" at any WikiProject that might help with this? (Incidentally, I have never found a single edible desert almond that had not been pilfered by a Neotoma spp. or other vermin, and I speculate that P. fasciculata might make a good rootstock for commercial brands of almond grown in extreme dry climate agricultural operations. Almond seems to be a hot topic right now at Wikiproject Plants.) PPdd (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, your illustration project sounds fantastic! I think that it would be very good to update Wiktionary because people do try to use it for information. A while ago I found it amazing how much obscure literary information was there and how little about the natural world, but I don't have a good feel for how it works and consequently haven't done a lot there. Recently someone made a user page for me there, with pointers to how to do things, so that would probably help a lot. You can certainly use images on wiktionary, see for example http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bipinnate. This person (who I don't know, just found her page) User:Theresa knott might be someone to ask about illustrations.

Do you graft? It's a wonderfully satisfying hobby (sometimes, when things work).

Thanks for the tip that a useful discussion is going on at Almond, I hadn't had the heart to look. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I graft? You have to ask my right foot small toe. When I started off grafting, I had never used a knife. So I got one of those Chevron Ortho "fruit trees" books for 50 cents at the local used book store, and a butcher knife from my mom's kitchen. I always go barefoot. Do I need to elaborate? Anyway, I still have the toe, and went on to spend an entire winter, all day, every day, until I had ten successful grafts of different varieties on each of about 60 bare root tree specials you used to be able to get for $1 each at the March bare root close outs at a Home Depot precursor hardware chain, after all the leaves had come in, and the ball of sawdust the bare root hairs had emerged into had started to rot. I got the varieties for free at a California Rare Fruit Growers scion exchange meeting. (And got a gillion bromeeliad pups for free, and lots of free orchid pups that died almost instantly. So there I was with my own 600 variety Rosaceae stone frut orchard planted on a rental property. It would be a different variety of peach from May to the "Halloween special". I was going to leave to go exploring in the desert for 6 weeks, but dealt with the potential deer problem by putting a slice of a bar of deoderant soap at the base of each tree, getting some lion gland extract (do they still sell that stuff at nurseries?) and buying out all the throw away stereo speakers at good will and wiring a speaker to each tree, then hooking it all to a cheap radio tuned to a Christian broadcasting station that preached hellfire and brimstone rants 24/7. It worked fine, and not a leaf got eaten by the deer. However, while I was gone, gophers chewed through the speaker wires, whence came the deer, and they did not even leave as much as a bite of cambium under the bark! Oh, well. Do I graft? Thanks for reminding me. Well, at least you didn't ask me about soil types, subsoil ecosystems, and fingernails, and remind me of that again! :) PPdd (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, so deodorant soap and lion gland extract and hellfire preaching are no use against gophers, got it. Would deodorant soap inactivate the lion gland extract, perhaps? Nadiatalent (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely would, and for personal reasons associated with those articles. But right now, I am photodocumenting the June rain effects on Chaparral in Central California, and have been for about five hours each day, and I will be spending about two or three solid weeks writing up what each image shows, and then add the images, and info about them with references, to the corresponding Wikipedia articles, or create the articles if none exist. So it will be about three weeks. If I don't respond kin three weeks, please remind me in case I don't check my talk page.

Is there something urgent (or that I could do quickly) that you need help with, or is three weeks OK? PPdd (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks is great. Will you just add your support at the above link for now? Rain in desert, sounds great. Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Color of Death and Welcome at Wikipedia

The Cabal seems to have decided it's a colour. I will rebel! :) TimL (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wikiproject Death are the only real Wiki cabal, other than that of the two religious "Dominionists", Pearlasia Gamboa of the theocratic Dominion of Melchizedek, and Sarah Palin of the Talk2Action Dominionism (just google "Sarah Palin Dominionism Talk2Action").

Check out this on the "True Color of Nothingness at Wikipedia". They deleted the image of Death! Time for our cabal to take some action? PPdd (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The abyss is definitely not black! It's orange, my favorite color, I swear! Put in a swatch of orange and see what happens. :-D TimL (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to here. PPdd (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at nothing

Your edit warring at nothing is becoming disruptive. I am asking you politely to self-revert and discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page which will be a whole lot better atmosphere. Spinning Spark 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Sorry. It now looks like we have all been working very well together for the past nine months. PPdd (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping the newbies :)

Hey PPdd, I noticed your comments to ManiacalCritic – thanks for taking the time to help him out. It's always so great to see Wikipedians reaching out and mentoring new folks, rather than just reverting/warning/brushing them off. Just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work! Accedie^{talk to me} 04:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to you. :) PPdd (talk)

WP:REDACT

Per WP:REDACT, please do not alter your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Fleiss after other editors have responded to them. You may, if you wish, strike them by adding <s> and </s> before and after the text you wish to "delete". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never read that behavioural guideline. I changed the section header on your note here as a reminder to me to read the whole thing more carefully since I just glanced at it today. Should I go back and try to figure out how to undelete or unchange things? PPdd (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For sticking your head where it doesn't belong

	The Beekeeper award
	I don't know what compels your incorrigible, indefatigable activism, but I hope it makes the world a better place and (stays neatly in line with our policies). Ocaasi^{t \| c} 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer - I am mentoring new editors from a shared IP

Disclaimer - I am mentoring new editors from a shared university IP PPdd (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

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

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

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because I was not edit warring. I beleived in good faith that I was stopping vandalism and BLP violations by including poorly sourced material. From Wikipedia:Edit warring - “There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy”, * “Reverting vandalism is not edit warring’, and “Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring”. *1. In each edit summary I made, I either explained my reverts were reverting vandalism, or that I was putting in reliable sources and undoing repeated placement of unreliable sources, which are BLP violations. *2. I announced at *2a. Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism – “184.193.181.187... User:Warriorboy85... after 3RR warning ... will not discuss at talk page and keeps deleting LA Times article sourced material, and replacing it with self promoting advert website "sources". ... 173.116.161.246 ... Meatpuppet for User:Warriorboy85 at Allied Artists International will not discuss at talk page and keeps deleting LA Times article sourced material, and replacing it with self promoting advert website "sources".” That is a clear statement that aI thought in good faith that I was undoing vandalism, so it is not edite warring. Also *2b. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reliable_sources_deleted_and_replaced_with_unsourced_material_at_Allied_Artists_International *2c. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Warriorboy85. *2d. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:173.116.161.246_reported_by_User:PPdd_.28Result:_.29 Yesterday, I also asked for help against the vandalism from two admins and an editor who mentored me *3a. here[1], *3b. here[2], and *3c. here[3]. Requst_for_help_at_Allied_Artists_International]. No one at any of those notices I made objected to my undoing ther vandalism (except for the accused puppetmaster directing the vandalism). If anyone other than the reported puppetmaster said they thought it was edit warring, I would stopped editing and discussed it with them before doing any more such edits. I thought 3RR did not apply to reverting vandalism. I thought in good faith it was reverting vandalism and was not edit warring. Please unblock me.

Accept reason:

Statement below assuring that the edit war is over and will not resume. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Allied Artists International. This edit shows you were well aware of our policy on edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block me just three minutes after issuing a warning, so that I could not possibly respond? PPdd (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be well aware of the policy on edit warring. [4] Toddst1 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism and BLP violations of removing good sources and putting in bad sources is not edit warring. However, I believe you put the block on me in good faith, and not as an instant 3 minute decision, because at a brief glance I would have thought the same as you. So I will respond in a couple of minutes. Instead of my objecting to the block in the manner described, I will respond to you directly here, because I believe you might be able to help stop the vandalism that I ineptly handled. I would ask that if you find that I was in good faith trying to stop vandalism and BLP violations, that mayby you can assist me in fighting it in this particular case. I will be back in a few minutes. PPdd (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be unblocked because I was not edit warring. I beleived in good faith that I was stopping vandalism and BLP violations by including poorly sourced material. You are correct that I am familiar with policies on edit warring, and that is why I thought I was not edit warring. From Wikipedia:Edit warring - “There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy”, * “Reverting vandalism is not edit warring’, and “Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring”. I explained my reverts were reverting vandalism in each edit summary I made, or provided and edit summary that aI was putting in reliable sources and undoing repeated placement of unreliable sources. So I believed in good faith that it was not edit warring, but reverting vandalism. I got no objections to any of my announcements that I was reverting vandalism, not edit warring. I announced at

1. Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism – “184.193.181.187... User:Warriorboy85... after 3RR warning ... will not discuss at talk page and keeps deleting LA Times article sourced material, and replacing it with self promoting advert website "sources". ... 173.116.161.246 ... Meatpuppet for User:Warriorboy85 at Allied Artists International will not discuss at talk page and keeps deleting LA Times article sourced material, and replacing it with self promoting advert website "sources".”

That is a clear statement that aI thought in good faith that I was undoing vandalism, so it is not edite warring. Also

Yesterday, I also asked for help against the vandalism from two admins and an editor who mentored me

5. here[5],
6. here[6], and
7. here[7]. Requst_for_help_at_Allied_Artists_International]. No one objected to my undoing ther vandalism, so or called it edit warring, except for vandalism puppetmaster Warriorboy85. If anyone other than the reported puppetmaster thought it was edit warring, they should have commented to me at those posts, and I would have discussed with them before doing any more such edits.

I thought 3RR did not apply to reverting vandalism. I thought it was vandalism, and so thought I was not edit warring. If I am unblocked, I will stop editing on these articles until discussions can take place at those boards. So I am asking that I be unblocked. I will step back from this area for a day anyway, to give others time to address my psots about the vandalism. Perhaps you can look at the Allied Artists International article sources and see for yourself what is going on, and undo the vandalism with more finality than I could. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that 3RR does not apply to reverting WP:Vandalism. Despite your labeling it the edits you were reverting as vandalism, they look much more like a content dispute. Note that vandalism requires a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not AGF with me. Per WP:EW, "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Please look at my posts on the talk pages, e.g.*1. Talk:Allied_Artists_International#173.116.161.246.2C_please_do_not_delete_edits_of_others_and_replace_reliable_sources_with_unreliable_sources, *2. Talk:Allied_Artists_International#Please_cite_specific_policies_and_guidelines_before_deleting_reliably_sourced_material

3. Talk:Allied_Artists_International#Please_discuss_on_the_talk_page_before_deleting_reliable_sources_for_NPOV_sentences.

There was no response at all by the "mystery IPs", who took down my construction tag repeatedly and replaced policy compliant material with policy violating material, all without any comment at talk responding to the many releavant talk page sections. Reverting to enforce overriding policies is not edit warring. Please read the sources in my last version, and the policy violating sources in what is currently up. PPdd (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Toddst, you blocked me, not the anon IP User: 184.193.181.187, who repeatedly deleted my content and replaced it with policy violating content, with an edit summary saying ““blatant attack against an individual associated with a different company designed to defame the target of the attack” Please cite a single line he deleted that fits his edit summary. Who is the “individual”? Please cite even one a single line that is an “attack” against anyone. What “different company” is the IP talking about? This is all just made up nonsense, like it is a made up IP. You made an error and blocked the wrong person in haste, apparently without even reading the article talk page. If you did not make an error, why did you block me less than three minutes after a 3RR, and not block the two anon IPs who are violating policies? PPdd (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of that fits the definition of WP:Vandalism.

Rather than argue that you were right and the other guy was wrong, there's an easier way here: State unequivocally that the edit was is over an you can be unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war is over. PPdd (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked and I don't see any autoblock in place. If one shows up check out {{Autoblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still blocked and followed the autoblock procedure. PPdd (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{unblock-auto}} if you still can't edit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I "use {{unblock-auto}}"? PPdd (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to edit something other than your user talk, do you get a block message? If so, fill in the information from the block message into the fields of the {{unblock-auto}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

98.234.235.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "PPdd". The reason given for PPdd's block is: "Edit warring".

Blocking administrator: Toddst1 (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Regular block already lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry - Indefinitely blocked

I was using IP because I do so when editing organized crime articles, and especially because of the third item in the reference list in this version [8]. Socks for the Kimball Dean Richards, aka User:Warriorboy85, the guy in that reference, deleted all of the reliable sources in my version, and replaced them all with very bad sources, which do not even say what they supposedly support[9]. Please see the recent sections in Talk:Allied Artists International. PPdd (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From User_talk:PPdd/Archive_2[10] -

"PPdd, make sure you log in all the time. Editing from IPs is not allowed when you have an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is absolutely false. Only certain known sock-puppeteers are required not to edit from IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you have openly confirmed your IP address - the same IP address you used to edit Talk:Allied Artists International and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart to appear as a different user supporting your positions, in some cases replying to your own comments. Doing so is highly manipulative and serious disruption. As a result, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bypassing due process at Wikipedia, and not having off talk page discussions of accusations of Sockpuppetry? You just did the same above by ignoring the normal process of 3RR accusations and an ability to respond on the proper public pages. Why do you keep blocking me without any normal procedures of due process, or even asking me for an explanation. What is the sockpuppetry? I have notified others that since I have been editing crime articles, I use an anonymous IP, especially as I have been physically threatened, as discussed elsewhere (ask User:Ocaasi). But there is no policy or guideline that requires this. And I even noticed the mentoring in the section above, where I might have the same IP as another working on the same article. I did not even have to make such notifications, since I am not required to remember to log on in order to edit. Admin Arthur Rubin even told me in my talk page archives that I can edit from a remote IP. When I do edits from different internet cafes, the IP address is different. How is that in any way sockpuppetry? Please cite the specific language which you base your block on. PPdd (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Don't you understand that pretending to be more than one person is forbidden here? You are supposed to use only ONE account (an IP is ONE account, and a registered username is another account). Since IPs can change, you're supposed to always log in. Anyone who has this problem should only edit while logged in.

There are certain exceptions, but there is absolutely no exception that allows pretending to be more than one person, especially if it involves edit warring, vote stacking, or block evasion. You have really goofed up here. (Note that an indefinite block isn't always an "eternal" block, but don't expect to be allowed back anytime soon.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, your writing "pretending to be more than one person... you're supposed to always log in" is a violation of AGF. That is COMPLETELY unlike you.

Do you recall this conversation we already had?

"PPdd, make sure you log in all the time. Editing from IPs is not allowed when you have an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is absolutely false. Only certain known sock-puppeteers are required not to edit from IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)"

I notified many editors that I received threats for editing on organized crime ring articles, when I started editing at Pearlasia Gamboa. I notified many editors I would be using anonymous IPs, such as User:Ocaasi, when I started editing at Pearlasia Gamboa and associated articles. I got the idea from Arthur Rubin correcting you. I also recommended to many editors that they also use anonymous IPs. Ask Ocassi.

Since I got blocked by Toddst1 without any of the normal due process and public pages discussion, and wihout even noticing me, the person blocked, I cannot notify these editors about this to comment.

Allied Artists Records was called the biggest fraud in music industry history in the LA Times. Please read the talk page of Allied Artists International. Please look at the third item in the reference list in this deleted version, and you, too, would want to edit from anonymous IPs. Please read the reference list here[11], then reinstate the reliable sources that the socks for Warriorboy85 removed and replaced with nonsense. PPdd (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It so happens that I still have your talk page on my watchlist. I have to say I am surprised at this and I think that Toddst1 may have been precipitate. In particular I don't see what he seems to see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart and I think the mixture of logged-in and logged-out comments at Talk:Allied Artists International, while not ideal, did not seem to me to be in any way deceptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems clear to me that the IP was PPdd, editing logged-out in an unwise but obvious way. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPdd, you may appeal this block by using the {{unblock}} template. However, I think your actions - especially replying to your own talk-page comments [12]- do not indicate that this block was made in error.

It would be different if you were signing the articles as your logged-in id. However, as is evidenced here, you payed very close attention to your signatures, ensuring they were exactly as you wanted them to appear - as an IP, different from PPdd (talk · contribs)

In fact, I have come to believe you have been deceiving the community for quite some time. This pattern is not new, and it is quite deliberate: [13] [14]. Toddst1 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what is so deceptive about this? The IP made trivial changes to his posting of 00:18 and signed it again so that it had a new timestamp of 00:22. That's not deceptive, that's good practice. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears that PPDD is ~~you are~~ evading his/her ~~your~~ block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. In what way does this show evidence of evading of a block? Please either specify or apologize. PPdd (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was that addressed to me? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sorry for the pronoun ambiguity. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I do not defend block evasion, of course. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there a sockpuppetry block without notice to the community in the normal manner, and in the way specified in the Wikipedia policies and procedures, with due process of specified accusations via diffs, and an ability for defense before the block, and a defense in a public place, not on my user page, utterly without due process? Toddst1 did the same thing by bypassing the 3RR process above, blocking me within three minutes of a 3RR warning, then ignored wording in WP:EW, and did not respond in any way to the fact that I was not edit warring because I was reverting vandalism and enforcing policies in a BLP. PPdd (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) From User_talk:PPdd/Archive_2[15] -[reply]

This is dispositive as to my intentions, since Arthur Rubin is a respected Admin -

"PPdd, make sure you log in all the time. Editing from IPs is not allowed when you have an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is absolutely false. 'Only certain known sock-puppeteers are required not to edit from IPs. — User:Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPdd (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the third item in the reference list in this[16] deleted version, and you, too, would want to edit from anonymous IPs.

My own block is unimportant to Wikipedia. So would someone please improve Wikipedia by reading the entire reference list here[17], then reinstate the reliable sources and information that the socks for User:Warriorboy85 removed and replaced with nonsense[18]. PPdd (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using IP because I do so when editing organized crime articles, and especially because of the third item in the reference list in this version [19]. Socks for the Kimball Dean Richards, aka User:Warriorboy85, the guy in that reference, deleted all of the reliable sources in my version, and replaced them all with very bad sources, which do not even say what they supposedly support[20]. Please see the recent sections in Talk:Allied Artists International. PPdd (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlasia Gamboa merge with Allied Artists Records contract signed 4-27-2000

I received an email that I would be blocked, as soon as I started editing at Allied Artists International. Toddstar1 has nothing to do with this, and blocked me in good faith. A careful reading of what is going on will likely change his decision to block me.
I and other editors of crime ring articles regularly get email threats of violence for our edits at Wikipedia. We are reporting to appropriate law enforcement, which has been using Wikipedia history pages and IPs to investigate for at least two years.
I have seen at various law enforcement agencies that they have a primary source document showing a contract between Kimball Dean Richards] of Allied Artists Records, now Allied Artists International, and Robert N. Rooks of Pearlasia Gamboa and David Korem's Dominion of Melchizedek fraud. It exchange Merit Diversified for Allied Artists Records. This information cannot go in Wikipedia because it is a primary source. The Grand Jury Indictment of Robert N. Rooks for Pearlasia Gamboa and David Korem’s Dominion of Melchizedek, Nevada Criminal Case CR-S-00-302 PMP(RJJ), was dropped because ALL of the witnesses “committed suicide”, in their various states.
According to the email I got two days ago, while I am blocked the Pearlasia Gamboa article will “suddenly” start to be ‘’substantially’’ edited, often by good faith editors who are being prodded by anon IPs and in other ways typical of the pattern of Korem’s and Richards’ crime ring. But this will occur only but only bit by bit, until WP:Article creep causes loss of information, just as happened over time with Allied Artists International since I edited there a year ago, and left because of the email threats I got from Warrioboy85.
While I am blocked, I ask that the Pearlasia Gamboa article be protected in the state it was in two days ago, before I started editing at Allied Artists International. (Threats of violence for editing on these articles were published in the SF Weekly story Fantasy Island, which was just removed from the Pearlasia Gamboa article!). PPdd (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]