User talk:Doctorjohnson

November 2017

Hello. Please stop changing articles from "are" to "is". You believe you are fixing grammatical errors, but you are in fact introducing them. Please read British_English#Loss_of_grammatical_number_in_collective_nouns and learn about this distinction. We also have documentation on this in the manual of style: MOS:ENGVAR. Further edits of this nature will be rolled back with no further discussion. Thank you. Warren -talk- 18:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Many thanks for your message. I will stop. This seems to be Wikipedia style for British bands but not those of other nationalities. Sigur Rós and Warpaint for example. I don't like this style discrepancy but it is not a battle I care to fight. However, I must note disagreement with your assertion I am in fact introducing grammatical errors. Please re-read British_English#Loss_of_grammatical_number_in_collective_nouns and note: A tendency to drop grammatical number in collective nouns, stronger in British English than in North American English, exists . . . this applies especially to nouns of institutions and groups made of many people. Why then not Google are a company, Oxford are a university? It would be more helpful if you could direct me to specific documentation in MOS:ENGVAR. Thank you. Doctorjohnson (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at WP:AIV.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your two recent reports at AIV appear to be at best frivolous and some might interpret them as bad faith. Abuse of AIV can get you blocked. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GAB^gab 04:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Account was not created to violate Wikipedia policy. This account is not a sock puppet. This account was created to make good-faith edits and add needed citations and content. I would like to be unblocked. Doctorjohnson (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to the socking you made two reports to AIV last night that reek of bad faith. Unless compelling evidence is presented that clears you of the socking your block will not be lifted. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (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.

Courtesy ping... GAB. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: CU has rated them a

Likely sock. GAB^gab 23:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]