User talk:JustANameInUse
November 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
JustANameInUse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I asked a simple question based on facts I collected and I get banned. I didn't even edit anything outside the discussions besides a few test edits. I didn't deface any page or anything similar. And a vegan editor calls me biased and combatative so I get banned because I responded? I'm neither a proponent of some diet nor against one. Just asking questions on how to write an article. If you unban me I will prove it.
Decline reason:
You were combatative, deeply so. If you don't see that, I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for you. We work on consensus and collaboration here; see WP:CONSENSUS. In any case, you haven't mentioned your probable violations of WP:SOCK and will need to do so. WP:GAB goes into more detail on how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2020 (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.
JustANameInUse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't know how to defend myself from being accused of sockpuppetry except by claiming I'm not one. This is my first and only account on wikipedia ever. I re-read my comments and they can be interpreted as combatative. I'm a direct person who communicates directly so I understand that that can be seen as aggressive by some and will tone it down in the future. I'm asking for a chance to write the article on I asked about, unbiased and correctly sourced and formatted. Thank you. JustANameInUse (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If this is your "first and only account on Wikipedia ever", then how come your very first edit says "For example, I just edited a carnivore disambiguation page ..."? Hmm? How could you have made other edits before starting your "first and only account"? Unless you're a sockpuppet, perhaps? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2020 (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.
Hello, JustANameInUse,
Most new editors start editing at articles where they see a typo or mistake or see an opportunity where they could add a valuable reference. You've been editing a day and repeatedly go on about "biased vegan" editors. Again and again and again. Before you have even tried improving an article. Can you not see how that is unnecessarily combative? It doesn't look promising for collaborative editing when you are already condemning unnamed editors as "biased" before you have even had a discussion on an article talk page about an edit you have a disagreement about. It's impossible to edit Wikipedia and not occasionally have disputes with other editors and you don't appear to be equipped to talk with people who have different opinions than your own. Because you lack neutrality, you are unlikely to get unblocked unless you can admit to that your approach was hostile and persuade an admin you can work with editors who might have disagreements without accusing them of bias. Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is this how things work here? If you ask a question and point out obviously biased people you get banned and called combatative and aggressive? Editors who have in their own pages text saying they are vegans and who oppose the writing of a article about a diet they are ideologically diametrically opposed. One of them even slandered me to be another user who he had a beef with, trying to get me banned before I even write something, laughing at me for asking a question and you call me out for not being collaborative? How is it even allowed that a toxic person with such an obvious bias can even edit articles that oppose his ideology? Don't you see how this looks from the outside? I thought it was about writing a quality encyclopedia, free of biases and POV but what little time I spent here it looks like editors enjoy having their own ideological fiefs and protecting them from anyone interfering. I won't be trying to remove this ban. You also lost a donator. JustANameInUse (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Forgot to answer the user Daniel Case who reviewed my request. Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just assume something, found a vague explanation for your action and called it quits? I explained what I did and why I did it. I didn't even hide that those were my edits done on the same day and from the same IP. And you call me a sockpuppet? If I was I would try to hide it, don't you think? JustANameInUse (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And now user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psychologist_Guy is accusing another person that he is my sockpuppet to get him off contributing to the Carnivore diet article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Life200BC And I can't even comment there or defend that user from slander because of this ban. Psychologist_Guy, who claims not to be a vegan advocate here but has veganism all over his user page, and has vandalized a lot of different diet articles that don't confirm to his vegan bias now reversed a good sourced link on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet that was showing it to be nutritionally deficient. Because to him, a source like https://collegeofmedicine.org.uk from a PhD in public health nutrition is not reliable. This is a disgusting and serious example of his bias and wikipedia editors continuous acceptance of such vandalism. JustANameInUse (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)