User talk:Draketo

Welcome!

Hello, Draketo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Kathryn V. Marinello. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Draketo. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! I've researched as much as I can about why this account (and the IP I generally use) were blocked on Wikipedia. So far as I can tell, an investigation related to possible spam links drew attention to several wikipedians - and one of the people linking to it was BlueBria. Next, an IP-based investigation was launched, and I was flagged as a sock puppet, apparently because I shared the IP address with BlueBria, along with a few other Wikipedians (some on that list I know in real life). While I'd like to preserve as much of my privacy as possible, I'm also willing to prove I'm not a sock puppet if necessary, by whatever means Wikipedia requires. (I see limited suggestions for that, but am willing to be flexible/creative with you). While I'm still learning and my edits have not all been perfect, I think it's clear they're all made in good faith (no shenanigans involved) and were, by and large, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Can you help me?

Decline reason:

This account was blocked as the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustincoopeI am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (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.

Message to Dlohcierekim

Dlohcierekim - Sorry to bother you with the email, and what I've put on this talk page.

I've spent 4-5 hours reading through Wikipedia's pages on these subjects as well as the block log for my account, and it looks like users are accused of sockpuppetry is suspected for a wide variety of reasons. The talk page where the discussion happens only mentions that I'm confirmed as a sockpuppet because my IP address is linked to the IP addresses of other users. I'm not a sockpuppet, but no clear reason is given about which sockpuppet-related signals/reasons caused the block. I'm not sure how I can address the reason that I've been blocked without categorically explaining why I'm not any of the possible reasons that someone could be flagged as a sock puppet (there are a lot, and nobody wants to read that.)

I'd like to ask the admin who blocked me, Bbb23, as was recommended here, but, I've looked at MushuNeak's talk page, and I see that Bbb23 has said that email is inappropriate for these kinds of communications, and has not responded to followups on Mushuneak's talk page. So that doesn't work -- unless MushuNeak did something wrong?

So far to help myself, I've chatted with several of the other blocked people on the list, who I know as we share a creative space together, for advice and thoughts. I've also read all the links listed below in their entirety:

... and a bunch of others. I've also read through some other people's unblock requests to see what they've done in this situation, but it wasn't very helpful. I want to help myself, but I really need a clue here on what I'm missing and/or where to go from here. Please guide me, if you can.

Thanks for your note. You were blocked by Bbb23. This is a check user block, so ultimately, only a check user can unblock. I suppose you've read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justincoope/Archive. Not a lot of useful information I'm afraid. Sorry, I cannot help you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! Four of the people flagged as sock puppets, myself included, would like to try to prove we're not sock puppets - which is why we were blocked (via a shared IP address). We'd like to prove this in three ways:

We are all posting our appeals to this block at the exact same time, from four different IP addresses (our respective homes). This allows a confirmation of IP addresses via checkuser.
We've each included a link to our personal LinkedIn accounts (here's mine: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ralph-legnini-b4556939/), and linked from that account back to this page. You can find that link on the top-right-hand corner of the page, by clicking on "Show More" under "Contact and Personal Info", where it's listed under "websites". Our LinkedIn accounts are much older than our Wikipedia accounts. This reveals our identifies and that we are real people - not sock puppets.
We've included a detailed explanation of our accounts and why they're editing from the same IP address and other possible concerns. This is as follows:

Why are there so many accounts with similar activity contributing from the same IP address?

The four of us Draketo, (MushuNeak, Dragon-360, and TieBroune) work together, for a company called Dragon360 (which was known as DragonSearch until about two weeks ago) in a shared office space in Kingston, NY. I have, in the past few years, become increasingly interested in learning and contributing to Wikipedia, and have been actively self-educating within Wikimedia Commons in general. In the past year and a half or so, I've also been teaching my coworkers how to do it, and my company has been encouraging us to improve our skills by adopting Wikipedia pages and editing them, as well as creating new pages, and being involved in deletion discussions. We do this both in our spare time and recreationally at work during allocated self-learning time (or "innovation time").

Are we disrupting Wikipedia?

MushuNeak, Dragon-360, TieBroune, and I have been researching topics thoroughly before writing about them. I've been doing my best to provide guidance on best practices and offering advice (on Wikipedia guidelines, formatting, and neutrality) before anything was published live, and we do our best to only publish things that won't drain more experienced editors' time as we learn. To that point, if you review our edits, I'm certain you'll see that none of the edits we've provided are disrupting or damaging Wikipedia. Every edit, big and small, has been made with positive intent and good faith to build up each page, respectively, and enhance the credibility of the edited pages. We are also careful to not edit pages as a group, which would violate "meat puppet" guidelines. It's a learning process, but we've been proud of our contributions, and they seem to have been welcomed, before this block, by the community.

Are we being paid to edit?

Recently, Dragon-360 posted on his talk page his intention to try out paid edits. But please bear in mind that no paid edits have actually been done yet, and before updating the talk page, he's carefully researched many Wikipedia-based articles and essays on policies related to this. Furthermore, Dragon-360 was clear of his intention on the page and has tried to comply with full disclosure guidelines.

Are there any other concerns?

If so, we're happy to share as much information to help this as we can. Just let us know on our talk page(s), and we'll follow up.Draketo (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The unblock request itself is clear evidence of meatpuppetry. I rather doubt you wrote it yourself, and you're posting it at the direction of another (blocked) editor. Huon (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2018 (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.

You all got together

and decided to edit from home. Sorry, but you seem to have been coordinating edits at work. Now coordinating edits from home. You need to reread WP:sock, as this is still sockpuppetry. And I infer you are all working together per WP:PAID. Sorry, nope.----Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:

In our desire to learn how to navigate through and make Wiki edits, we as friends shared learned knowledge through some hands-on activity while receiving guidance related to best Wiki practices. Our most advanced Wiki practitioner shared knowledge & advice and ensured that anything done conformed to Wiki guidelines.

I am aware of a number of Wiki editing workshops. Others can be found with a Google search. Eventbrite features some as learning events.

Since I am quite new to Wiki – I was not familiar with the ‘sock puppet’ terminology / label. I have now taken time to read through the ‘sock puppet’ article, and it is my interpretation that nothing done on my part crossed any lines to violate any stated policies in that article.

There was no paid component in this process.

Please reconsider your current evaluation of my activity – I hope this message further explains and clarifies my intentions.