User talk:Blissyu2
test okay thanks
Moira Deeming
[edit]Hi, I'm writing to explain why myself and others have reverted your edits. The recent edits you made at the Moira Deeming article have contained unreliable sources - please see WP:RELIABLE and you have had your edits challenged repeatedly, please see WP:EDITWAR. We don't publish self serving claims by groups like "Let Women Speak" as per WP:MANDY - of course they'll deny anything that looks bad in the press. Ideally we publish claims from third parties (uninvolved) in mainstream outlets with reputations for editorial and academic rigor: mainstream news outlets, academic papers, books etc. sort of like you do when citing a university assessment. Let me know if you'd like me to clarify further. Best regards, Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Tambor. I did what you told me and was still permanently banned. I was also completely correct in every way, while you were wrong. I don't know what more I could possibly have done. I am glad I suppose that finally the article is in a better state now but it is disappointing that I got banned forever because of your obnoxious behaviour. Blissyu2 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Blissyu2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not using multiple accounts.
Decline reason:
You yourself stated you have used multiple accounts. See here. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2023 (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.
That's not what I said on Simple Wikipedia. In fact, I said quite clearly that I have only ever used one account. Anyway, if you're still corrupt and want to keep making bad articles, then so be it. 13:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Blissyu2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
reason to be clear, I never abused multiple accounts, and the link that Yamla links is not a confession to anything. I had over 12 months of good use on Simple Wikipedia and my account became available again. I was falsely accused of abusing multiple accounts then, which was used to unjustly justify the unjustifiable, when I'd done absolutely nothing wrong, with Yamla abusing his position because he was caught out by Wikipedia Review doing the wrong thing, and now he is again corruptly involving himself. Seriously. If this were a competent organisation you'd have banned Yamla for good, not someone who has never done anything wrong. Have a look at my edits. They were constructive. They always are. Yet I get falsely accused of all sorts of things. Seriously, guys. Stop lying for a change.
Decline reason:
I stopped reading at "Yamla abusing". See WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2023 (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.
((unblock|I'll explain my situation made simple. In 2004, 19 years ago, I used Wikipedia constructively, as one of the early adopters, experimenting without creating an account because I didn't know if I liked it. Unknown to me, my ISP Internode created a different IP address every time I logged in, so I was sharing an IP range with about 100,000 different people, and at least a hundred or so of them used Wikipedia. At least two of them occasionally engaged in stupid vandalism and quite correctly received short-term blocks. Then, fast-forward 2 years and I had no idea that someone else on the IP that I was using that day had engaged in random acts of stupid vandalism, and was blocked for 1 month for adding accurate information by an overly-excited administrator. An abusive user who saw a way to create false articles then took advantage of this by creating a fake petition to get me banned. I countered this with my own more accurate information about him, and he then petitioned it to the Arbitration Committee. In a split decision, they decided that I was wrong in my claims that he was POV pushing and deliberately presenting false information on Wikipedia, and made the decision to delete my user page. Then, after that decision was made, I was suddenly banned for a year for a legal threat made by the guy who made the false accusations against me! It was an incredible situation, but that was the Arbitration Committee's split decision. It was, of course, never enforced because it was an absurd decision that was unjustifiable. I then joined Wikipedia Review when it appeared and complained about what had happened, completely unaware of the decision that had been made. I made my own account on Wikipedia finally and used it for a year with over 5,000 constructive edits and not a single issue about it. Then suddenly one of the Wikipedia administrators who was correctly criticised for bad behaviour on Wikipedia decided to ban me. That person was Yamla. Yamla alone decided to ban me permanently, which was against community involvement. Since then, I've used Simple English Wikipedia for 17 years with no issues. Even in the latest issue surrounding Moira Deeming, I was right. 100% of my edits were constructive. This ban is unjustifiable. Thank you. It was Yamla's corrupt ban by Yamla alone to hide his corruption.}} Blissyu2 (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the blocking admin for this account. That's Blablubbs who blocked you for abusing multiple accounts. Unless, perhaps, you are talking about another account rather than this one despite stating above "I'm not using multiple accounts" and "I never abused multiple accounts". --Yamla (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are the admin who put in the permanent ban. It was a short-term ban for something that someone else did until you imagined the false sock puppetry claim. You are the one who should be removing it. And also please remove that obnoxious and false claim on the user page. I did nothing wrong. Check my editing history. But you know that already, don't you? You didn't like being called out for your own bad behaviour. Blissyu2 (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Blissyu2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
17 years ago, far too long ago for anyone who is not me to remember, I was mistakenly accused of being a vandal by an admin because of a shared IP address range and the admin not seeming to understand that multiple separate people used the same IP addresses and I had not engaged in any vandalism. This case of mistaken identity then led to a series of very aggressive comments and criticisms by a Wikipedia user that I would describe as bullying. I then made a complaint of bullying on my own user page. He then made a Request for Arbitration over it, arguing that not only was he not engaging in bullying, but that I was secretly a vandal as well, and that the IP addresses that represented potentially 10,000 different people were all secretly me. The arbitrators had a split decision on this and ruled that I was not engaging in sockpuppetry, and there was no evidence that I was deliberately lying about anything, as I had quite reasonably thought that I had been bullied. They determined that the correct course of actions was for both parties to delete the offensive userpages, to make up with each other, mutually apologise and that was that. Following that decision, which occurred 2 months after I had last used Wikipedia, the other party then claimed to have received a legal threat that he was sure was from me, as it was from an IP address that I had possibly used. The arbitration committee accepted this and gave me a 1-year ban that was never enforced. There was never any sockpuppetry, never any vandalism. This was about me being bullied, and Wikipedia's arbitration committee ruling that I wasn't allowed to complain about. The rest of the stuff, with sockpuppetry and vandalism and all of the other false claims came after the fact. It is 17 years past and I have been a very constructive user over on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I have some hopes of being granted adminship there. This is my preferred username, which was banned here at one stage with no edits just because everyone knew that it was the name I had used for 35 years. I have never engaged in any sockpuppetry and never will. I am not a ban evader. Thank you. Blissyu2 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'll make this short: You're evading a ban, and I am removing talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2023 (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.