User talk:Chiyote

Edit War on The Egg (Weir short story)

Your recent editing history at The Egg (Weir short story) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hey Chiyote! I understand you're trying to add a claim to this article that you wrote a prior work which was used by the author as inspiration. This is currently an unsubstantiated claim; please see the discussion I've started on the talk page. Since the claim you're making is controversial and you are the author of the work you're claiming was a source, you likely also have a conflict of interest in amending the contents of this page.

As this is not a particularly active page and all of its recent edits seem to have been either you adding this claim or other editors reverting your changes, I'm asking you to stop adding this information to the page directly and instead engage in discussion on the talk page at a minimum. Thanks! Dylan (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin. I understand your concerns but do understand that the information I provided is factual and evidence can be supplied to support these claims. For starters I will be happy to supply a video screenshot of an email I sent in October 2007 that shows me quoting The Egg two years before it was published. Out of curiosity why does no one ask the computer programmer turned author with no background in philosophy for proof he wrote it without assistance?

Dear admin. I understand your concerns but do understand that the information I provided is factual and evidence can be supplied to support these claims. For starters I will be happy to supply a video screenshot of an email I sent in October 2007 that shows me quoting The Egg two years before it was published. Out of curiosity why does no one ask the computer programmer turned author with no background in philosophy for proof he wrote it without assistance? Chiyote (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, just an editor. You were blocked for edit warring. You repeatedly restored a claim which multiple editors had reverted, even following clear warnings and a request to move to the article's talk page for discussion. Other factors may have been taken into consideration, including that adding your claim of plagiarism to this article was the sole recent activity on your account (WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA) and that you had a clear personal interest in the claim being added (WP:COI).

If your goal here is to get this change added to this article, and nothing else, you're unlikely to succeed. One way I personally like distancing myself from a conflict of interest is to ask myself if any arbitrary editor would be likely to make the same change. In this case, I think you'll find the answer is no—there are no widespread reports of this besides your own original research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to call out an author. Even if your claims were true, they are not verifiable.

On the other hand, if you're interested in editing Wikipedia in general, and wish to appeal your block, you can do so below. I hope the resources I've linked help you understand this block better, and I recommend reviewing them. Contesting the block on the basis that the thing you were trying to railroad into an article is true is unlikely to succeed. Good luck, and I hope to see you around someday! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware of the talk system. I can easily provide evidence that I am a source with 1st hand knowledge. https://youtube.com/watch?v=c7Syh3-4M4o&feature=youtu.be

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dylan (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information I provided was good and factual information. I can support my claims with evidence that is self authenticating evidence, emails dated 2 years prior to Andy Weir’s unsubstantiated claims of publishing The Egg. Chiyote (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information that appears in Wikipedia must be verifiable through the inclusion of material published in reliable sources, not your own knowledge and experience or personal documents.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that verify Andy is the actual author that don’t just take him at his word. So what’s the difference? It’s hypocritical. Especially since between me an Andy, I’m the one who actually can prove the history of its authorship. My files predate Andy’s publication date of the Egg by YEARS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiyote (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not using sock puppets

What I am doing is going public on Facebook and Reddit by showing evidence of the plagiarism and the evidence of Andy bribing me to lie for him. It’s no surprise that the evidence I am coming forward with is gaining traction because the evidence I have is substantial.