User talk:Amanda Smalls

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

This is Amanda Smalls's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 10 days

Amanda Smalls uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

Suggest Bot

A page you started (Cordulegaster bidentata) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cordulegaster bidentata, Amanda Smalls!

Wikipedia editor Jim Cartar just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Jim Cartar's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback

Hello, Amanda Smalls. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 13:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I hope it is the correct answer. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purely social posts

Consider avoiding posts such as asking about maths problems or if someone likes a tv show. There is Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is one of the Internet's best kept secrets. I am about to post there. Watch my contribs to see. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you mentioned wanting to work on some jellyfish articles. I made a couple today: Liriope tetraphylla and Botrynema ellinorae We can make more if you like.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make another article? An I will help out too?Amanda Smalls 14:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm off to bed soon, but tommorow looks good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok!Amanda Smalls 14:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and do you want to sign my guestbook?Amanda Smalls 14:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, but probably not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

m²m²m²m²m²m²m²

Moved from User talk:Yunshui

The Ping template is not working. I think.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is either.:)Amanda Smalls 14:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are learning algebra or calculus?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Algebra II, Polynomials.Amanda Smalls 14:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What type of questions actually trouble you?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just the ones that ask you to multiply the polynomials. I'm good at the adding and subtracting ones.Amanda Smalls 14:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is (a + b).(a - b)?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it a^2-b^2?Amanda Smalls 14:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is! Now another one. What is (x^3 - 7) . (x^4 + 8). Please show me how you will solve it?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to explain it? The answer is X^7+8x^3-7x^4-56.Amanda Smalls 14:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain how you got this result? Can you show the rough work?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I used the FOIL method.( This is my IP)173.78.222.115 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretty good at multiplication. What exact type of multiplication questions trouble you? Do you face difficulty in solving questions with higher degrees?--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I GOT AN A ON THE TEST! Thank you so much! You're the best!Amanda Smalls 15:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Amanda is good at learning from Skr15081997, and Skr15081997 is good at teaching Amanda, but Amanda is slightly less good at explaining what she learned from Skr15081997 :) I am glad it all worked out well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you again so much for the lovely barnstar.

I am very impressed with your article creations, and would love to see more of the mainspace work that you have to offer.

I am also somewhat concerned that you are being drawn away from being productive, and toward drama and conflicts. It takes a long time to see that many of these discussions are often more complicated than they seem. You may find yourself taking a position and then seeing that you were on the wrong side. It is sometimes better to take no side. On the upside, when you do get involved, you often take a neutral peacemaking position, and that is good.

If you need to get a drama fix, try Shakespeare. :) Wikipedia drama is the worst and lamest kind. Reading it is a waste of life. Getting involved is worse as it draws others in which wastes everybody's life.

Finally, if you must make your views known, please ensure that you comment on the edits and not the editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I wont cause drama. I'll even work on an article right now!Amanda Smalls 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Scarus scaber, a nice start! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare is awfully difficult to read for 20th and 21st century teenagers. When I was 14, we had to study Twelfth Night, supposedly a comedy!, for English GCSE, and we focused on the scenes with Malvolio because they might be more amusing. They turned out to be deadly dull. (In A-level Latin we studied Ovid's Metamorphoses, which suffered because the teacher, a Cambridge graduate incidentally, failed to properly explain that the various events were supposed to be witty or whimsical, and instead just made the class plough through the whole work translating its meaning literally in a stony-faced sulk. I understood some of the humour, but some of my classmates were left thinking it was the worst work of literature ever.)

Amanda, you might actually find Twelfth Night interesting to read, because the plot is perhaps the most famous early exposition of "gender reversal" (in the acting sense) in the English language. It must have caused huge confusion in Shakespeare's own day, since women were not allowed to act on the stage, thus the parts of boys pretending to be girls, and girls pretending to be boys, and girls as girls would all have been acted by boys who could pass as girls on stage. Complicated!

Twelfth Night was a comedy, supposedly, so perhaps one of Shakespeare's formal dramas would be a better thing to read for drama? Well perhaps not; Tolkein is partly based on Tolkein's dissatisfaction with some of Shakespeare's work, so just watch a good Tolkein-based movie instead.

If you want to read real drama enacted as comedy (real political satire at its ugliest), get a translation of anything by Aristophanes. WARNING, the sexual and vulgar references are about a dozen per page! And it's nearly 2500 years old, which shows there's nothing new... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New fish

Pretty nice fish, right? Feel free to start it if you like. (You can steal a taxobox from Chaetodontoplus caeruleopunctatus and swap in the right info.)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice pretty fish!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: It's absolutely a nice fish!Amanda Smalls 12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

Amanda, when I advised you to stay away from Jimbo's talk page I was serious. You're 14 and far too innocent to read some of the stuff said there!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Sorry, I understand now.Amanda Smalls 12:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that you are about my age when I first learned about words like those. With your new knowledge though you can learn not to use the word, and identify when your friends first start using it so you can tell them that it is not okay. Don't feel sorry to have taken away something new here. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard of the C-word before, but never knew what it meant. Actually, I hear it all the time because half of my friends are bad people.Amanda Smalls 17:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I find them to be very insightful.Amanda Smalls 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I also want to say that this is the reason why words insulting people shouldn't be thrown around carelessly here on Wikipedia. No we cant protect everyone but in general it is best to keep your cool and remain civil or at least try to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from Amanda?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:Valrico, Florida. Why?Amanda Smalls 15:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not concentrate on getting it to WP:Good article status? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Amanda, try to focus on the fish if it interests you and find somebody at the fish project to help guide you, you're really asking the wrong people in Eric and myself! Good luck! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good thinking Dr. Blofeld! See how nice Dr. Blofeld is with his WP:Good article suggestion? Sure, he tried to cut 007 in half, but that was just business, (and frankly, Bond had it coming). Amanda, consider joining some Wikiprojects. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Good community spirit, lots to do, etc. Most of us are already members at several. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On/off archive

Hi Amanda! I see that you have the same problem with the OneClick-archiver that I had at first. :) The "click area" is so dangerously close to the scrolling bar and I almost archived an entire talk page once. Very embarrassing! So I asked around and found out that there is a way to turn of the script when you don't need it (which is not very often). You simply put two // in front of the script. That turns it off. To turn it on again you just remove the slashes. You can look at my js page User:W.carter/common.js how it looks now that my archiving is currently turned off. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information! I will definitely look into it!Amanda Smalls 15:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is Amanda Smalls your real name? I am a bit worried that you might be giving out too much personal information that could be used against you by the wrong people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read WP:YOUNG regarding personal information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Checkuser-blocked

Hello - in following up on the recent SPI findings and your continued odd behaviour, it has become clear that you are not who you say you are. Your oldest account is not User:SkaterLife as originally suggested by the SPI, but Kaka1987654, which was editing Spanish Wikipedia in 2009. And more particularly, Tiptoety asked you if you had any other accounts, which you denied. Turns out that only hours before, you had created another account on German Wikipedia, and immediately sought out someone to act as a mentor. This account was not identified in the initial SPI because it had not yet logged into English Wikipedia, but has since done so.

It is time to put an end to this. You are indefinitely blocked, under a Checkuser block, which cannot be undone without consultation with and agreement from the Checkuser team. Risker (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointing "Amanda".♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I wouldn't even call this person that, John/Jane Doe sounds better I mean the name used could have been stolen from a real person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, hence the scare quotes, you're not too bright at times are you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the quotes, but even so still too good for the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness I didn't think Amanda was as obvious as somebody like Patrol forty, I guess unless a person is really aggressive or unpleasant I'm less likely to "investigate" them or really look much into them with suspicion. Some of "Amanda"'s questions to Jimbo seemed to come from somebody looking for a bit of attention from him which isn't uncommon in kids that age, but I can see how some see it as pure trolling. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I've dealt with a ton of socks at SPI, but still wasn't ready to pull the trigger without a CU looking in because there wasn't obvious disruption in their edits. It is a frustrating situation to be in, to *KNOW* someone is a sock but to be unable to tangibly prove it. In reality, it is the subtle and careful trolls that do the most damage. Same with vandals. The ones that quietly insert plausible but false information are more destructive than the ones that just insert swear words. As for Forty.... Dennis - 2¢ 15:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People claiming things like anorexia and transgender are more likely to get away with it too as people will usually tread on egg shells not to offend them and treat them normally as I was doing. If she was suffering from anorexia calling yourself "Mirror freak" would be extremely unlikely and is incredibly offensive to those who genuinely are suffering from it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the giveaways was the constant treading into known WP hot topic areas with apparently naive innocent questions/comments. This is an example. Provocateur-style. DeCausa (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel the lot of you, including poor dear Mr Wales, woudl have benefited, had your parents employed [a good old fashioned British nanny]. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- w.carter-Talk 18:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak, W.carter, Dr. Blofeld, Dennis Brown, Knowledgekid87, and Risker:Wow, what a thing to see when I come back. So, first I'm not really sure what I'm being blocked for? I haven't abused any accounts, and I don't even know anything about a German account and the only Spanish account was when I was trying to edit in the Spanish Wikipedia. I didn't even know about Wikipedia let alone a Spanish national anthem when I was 10 years old. As for the meaning of MirrorFreak and relating to my Anorexia, I'm a freak in the mirror. As to using "grown-up" language and grammar, Is it a crime that I'm educated? Was I expecting to be treated differently because I'm an anorexic and transgender, nope not at all. Am I surprised by this kind of behavior? Not really, most people cant wait to get the jump on an reformed puppet master. Of course in this case you were wrong. And yes, they do perform Gender-Reassignments on minors, and yes my real name is now Amanda Smalls. And that deleted picture of me that I took for the Dudes Lodge was me. Not all transgenders dress up you know?Amanda Smalls 17:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a "Checkuser block", by Risker. No admin has the authority to review it, only another Checkuser can. Dennis - 2¢ 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on Eric's page is what did you in: User talk:Eric Corbett#Article. As for your account it was connected to two others you made on other Wikipedia's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the owner of this account ask for their block to be reviewed or question whether they had posted on Eric's page? Are people replying to some comments that are not visible to ordinary editors here? If so, why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda asked us to comment here by pinging us. Why are you here? Dennis - 2¢ 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But your responses have no relevance to the account owner's comments. So, the question stands.

And to answer your question (just to be polite), I'm here because the owner of the account has posted on my talkpage (and the talkpage of some people I work with) several times. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her comment was a prelude to an unblock, as she was pinging us here to hear her side. That is fine, she has a right to review. My comment was a courtesy to make sure they understand that only CUs can review CU blocks. That isn't intuitively obvious, as (several times) I've seen admin screw up and decline CU block reviews when in fact they lack the authority to do so. I didn't inject any opinion on the block, just gave the facts. Dennis - 2¢ 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having now provided me with a justification for the non-sequitur that I found so inappropriate. There was more than one such non-sequitur (the others not from you). Hopefully they will not multiply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda was already being led to the gallows by suspicious editors, her posting on Eric's talkpage just fueled the fire of the ones that were suspecting things (You can see the section for yourself). Anyways my point is that if Amanda is who she says she is then this could have been handled a lot differently and would have liked to see her defend her actions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what do you mean by non-sequiturs Demiurge1000? The explanation and rationale of how the block came about is at AN/I. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and there's another one! I have nowhere described any part of the rationale for the block as a non-sequitur. This page seems a difficult place to make oneself understood, I think I was misguided to comment at all. Later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you on about? seriously. what. are. you. on. about. Demiurge1000 i.e. spell it out rather than drop insinuations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the only connection that I have with Germany is that my mom's cousins live there. Look, all I want is to edit Wikipedia. I looked at the ANI report and saw that it was suggested for me to edit strictly articles. I'm perfectly fine with that as long as I can edit.Amanda Smalls 12:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2014)

Grand Canyon of Yellowstone, the world's first national park

Hello, Amanda Smalls.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

National park

Previous selections: Ice hotel • Central America

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Block

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).

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

Request reason:

As I said before, I wasn't aware of any German or Spanish accounts until yesterday. I also will admit to being overly social here. As to speaking in a "grown-up" manner at times, this was solely for the purpose that I wanted my questions to be taken seriously. Honestly, I really am who I say I am, and if need be, I'll give an admin my FLVS username and password so that you can see I'm speaking truthfully. When I said "pretty please with a cherry on top" I only meant that as a way to make someone kind of chuckle when they see it, not to try and troll. The reason I came out so matter-of-factly was because the people here at Wikipedia have made me feel so comfortable, that I wouldn't have to worry about being judged. I am perfectly okay with directing my edits 100% to the article space. Please reconsider this block. Amanda Smalls 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't adequately address the concerns raised. My overall impression is that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2014 (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.

~~I've reverted the admin decline of this block as only a Checkuser may review a Checkuser block. Dennis - 2¢ 16:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)~~ Now reviewed by a CU Dennis - 2¢ 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown and PhilKnight: Okay, I understand. Have a great time editing! Have a good life.Amanda Smalls 14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis BrownIf you could do me a favor and delete all my userspace pages, that'd be appreciated.Amanda Smalls 16:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete your user page or talk page due to procedural policies, although you can blank your talk page. Other pages can be deleted, if you have subpages, just ping me with a list. Dennis - 2¢ 17:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Let me get them all rounded up.Amanda Smalls 17:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis BrownThere's a lot more though but here's some of them.Amanda Smalls 17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amanda Smalls/Infernus 780 adoption

User:Amanda Smalls/Userboxes/MirrorFreak Trans

User:Amanda Smalls/Infernus 780 adoption

User:Amanda Smalls/Take a Break warning

User:Amanda Smalls/Eat

User:Amanda Smalls/Vandal Hunting

User:Amanda Smalls/Adoption Notice

User:Amanda Smalls/Userboxes

User:Amanda Smalls/Wrong

User:Amanda Smalls/Correct

User:Amanda Smalls/Wikibreak

User:Amanda Smalls/Welcome

User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Pierce The Veil

User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Math

User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Uncensored

User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Dogs 2

User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Dog

User:Amanda Smalls/Sad

User:Amanda Smalls/Mad

User:Amanda Smalls/Bored

Okay, That's all of em. Also I still don't know what I've been Blocked for. Is it WP:NOTHERE?Amanda Smalls 17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, you have Checkuser block that came up just as you were going to be being blocked for WP:NOTHERE, due in part to socking concerns. A Checkuser block is similar to a sockpuppet block, but it can be more or less complicated and the reason is not disclosed. This is why it took a checkuser to review it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown Do you think that there is a possibility for me to become unblocked in the future?Amanda Smalls 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough information on the CU portion of your block to give you an intelligent answer. I think Risker is the one you need to talk to. I had doubts it will happen any time soon. Honestly, none of us buy the persona you were presenting here, and the idea of pretending you are a transgendered teen when you aren't, that upsets most editors around here, who are very sensitive to the plight of transgendered persons. Whether or not it is true, it seemed obvious that it wasn't. Risker is an ex-Arb, and by any definition, very experienced when it comes to dealing with editors. If she decided to unblock you (likely with conditions), then I'm pretty sure most people would give her the benefit of the doubt in determining it was a worth while risk, even if they disagreed with it, so she has the technical ability and community respect to make that decision, and since she made the block, she is the only person who could do so on their own. She is also a good judge of when someone is bullshitting her, so if you decide to talk to her, I would strongly suggest you be nothing but 100% honest. She is also not one to waste her time, so if you aren't forthcoming and honest, she will be quick to dismiss you and move on to more worthwhile projects. We aren't fools here, and we demand honesty, but we aren't unreasonable. Realistically, you have one opportunity, so don't waste it. Dennis - 2¢ 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risker I don't know what to do to convince everyone I'm telling the truth. I really am a homosexual. I've offered to give you guys my FLVS username and password to prove that I'm a teen. Please just tell me what I can do to edit again. You tell me to jump, I'll say how high. Just tell me what to do and I'll do it. Lay down some rules. Please.Amanda Smalls 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I reviewed the block, I ran a checkuser and found a puppet account, Laughs and Giggles that you had used in the last few days. In the context of your extensive use of puppet accounts, I would be surprised if you were unblocked any time soon. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm arguing about how admin shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at WT:BLOCK at this very moment. Dennis - 2¢ 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised to be unblocked too. I'm also surprised that Dennis made a personal attack at me.Amanda Smalls 19:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, particularly since I've done nothing but be accommodating here and graciously explaining in painstaking detail, but I'm not up to arguing. Dennis - 2¢ 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound mean or suggest that you're a jerk. Maybe it's because others started doing it. But it started on Eric's talk page. People have started a parody of my name Amanda, calling it "A man, duh".Amanda Smalls 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents but really... another account you made? Trust is key in relationships and that goes for Wikipedia as well, you used and abused it with editors. Dennis Brown has been giving you helpful advice but at this point I do not feel that it is needed. Your biggest mistake was making the other accounts and trying to deny it. Had you come clean and said "Yeah they are mine" you most likely wouldn't have made things worse. So no there were no personal attacks made by Dennis, just you trying to say that you should be unblocked because you didn't make the accounts which is a lie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the pings here. I will note that it was appropriate to have another checkuser respond to the unblock request, if for no other reason than to have the results independently verified. PhilKnight did so, and he and I did not have any communication about the unblock request; his decision is completely independent of my own actions. That he found further socking when doing the independent checkuser review of the unblock request is...well, it's just plain sad. I can't say it's unexpected, but it's still sad. I have no intention of unblocking the user behind these accounts for a good long time, i.e., years. And it has nothing to do with gender identity or sexuality or health issues. It's just about the socking and the behaviour. Risker (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

@Dennis Brown and Risker: I think that I have evidence the Cyphoid is puppet master. Over on the Simple English wiki, A user named, Cyphoid bomber was blocked for abusing multiple accounts.Amanda Smalls 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but nope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be cute, I'm being serious.Amanda Smalls 18:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the most important thing on my mind right now is to be cute. All I'm trying to do is prevent puppetry. The fact that you're acting in such a snobbish and jerk-offish attitude shows that you aren't socially able to speak correctly to someone.Amanda Smalls 18:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are an indefinitely blocked user. Your comments on this page should be limited to discussing your own block. If you continue with this fruitless dialog, I will ask that access to your talk page be swiftly removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please? And I'm being serious when I ask this. Obviously no one will ever unblock me, as evident by the statements made previously. I don't see any hope at all of coming back to Wikipedia unless I need to use it for research in my academic studies.Amanda Smalls 19:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb:Thank you for putting in the request. I really appreciate it. Though you probably don't care, you have my full respect for doing something for a indef blocked user.Amanda Smalls 19:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]