Jump to content

User talk:Sdm215

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to create new section and sub-section in a Wiki article

[edit]

I need to know how to create new section and sub-section in a Wiki article. And how to delete an existing section. Sdm215 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm GeneralizationsAreBad. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Circumcision seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GABgab 22:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with my viewpoint on male circumcision, does not give you the authority to block me. That's really unfair, and not within guidelines the Wikipedia code. Your conduct is uncalled for and outrageous. I have appealed the block and I may consider talking to the community about your behavior.Sdm215 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Sdm215 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeneralizationsAreBad You have blocked my username. How do you expect me to communicate with you? I do not know who is VOHRA. I am not affilated with them. I am a real person. You blocked my username as an attempt to censor me because you don't agree with my viewpoint. Sdm215 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 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).

Sdm215 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am not affiliated with VOHRA. The 'circumcision' topic is controversial, but since Wikipedia is not a censoring encyclopedia, then both sides of the controversy should be included an article. I am a real person. I am a lawyer and a single mother of a boy.

Decline reason:

We know you are related to VoHRA. We know you've used the same computer from the same location. Combine that with the overlap in editing and this is a clear violation of WP:SOCK, which you have not sufficiently addressed. Yamla (talk) 18:11, 16 October 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.

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).

Sdm215 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am in ***. And yes, I make the same edits from the same computer. I only have one computer. The burden should be on you to prove that I am a sock of VOHRA. But nevertheless, before I edited Circumcision, I made other edits. For example, I edited Kegalu Vidyalaya, and Lighthouse Books. I also added a comment to Talk:Circumcision. I created this account on the 6th. Whoever VOHRA is, they created there account on the 13th. Therefore, I can't be a sock of an account created after my account. You would have to ask VOHRA why their edits mirror my edits. Perhaps, they liked my edits and simply reversing an 'undone' edit was not sufficient for them. Perhaps they copied mine, at least that is what it looks like to me. I can say, that the only thing that I may be "guilty" of writing with inflammatory language. I posted at 22:25. Three seconds later, a user reversed me at 22:28. One minute later, VOHRA posted edits. The same user undid VOHRA's edits within seconds. I do not have multiple accounts. I have one - sdm215.

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request at a time, please. See below. Huon (talk) 00:01, 17 October 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.

Sdm215 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...prove that I am a sock of VOHRA. We already have proven that the accounts are the same. Whether this account is a sock of VoHRA, or the other way around, is immaterial. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: I checked the list of SPI's and I don't see my username. I also checked the VOHRA block page. The only evidence that I see is an admin's comment that "Each account makes the minimum number of edits so they can than edit circumcision." That does not seem like sufficient evidence. You can't compare IP addresses because my computer is a shared computer. So, how did Wikipedia confirm that my account is a sock of another user?
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).

Sdm215 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

My computer is a shared computer.

Decline reason:

What are the chances that the four people editing the same article in the same way happen to share one computer and still are unrelated editors? Close enough to zero that we needn't bother with that scenario. Huon (talk) 00:01, 17 October 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.

Sdm215 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]