User talk:Sockpuppet2014

Stan Lee

Hi. Regarding your revert, the photo is question is indeed "up to date". The phrase "up to date" does not mean "most recent". It means that something is in line with the most recent changes to something. There are no changes in Lee's appearance that the most recent photo shows that the prior one does not. Nightscream (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Nightscream! I comprehensively disagree. Him having aged seven years is already a change by default. While we humans might not be able to pinpoint the change just looking at it, logically you can deduce or conclude that skin has changed. Is that not a change? This is a BLP, for which I think most recent photos should be used, rather than a historical biography, for which we use an iconic image of subject, as in the case of Liz Taylor. Before registering I looked through all the policies and whatnot and I hope my edit was not egregious in any way. (P.s. Stan does not wear shades in the 2014 one! Another change) --The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 14:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nightscream. You made a WP:BOLD edit and youve been reverted so take it to the talk page. Btw, what does "this is a BLP, not a BDP" even mean anyway? Yes I know hes not dead, what does that have to do with anything? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Him having aged seven years is already a change by default"

I'm not sure what you think the word "default" means here, but there is no significant change in his appearance, which is the only relevant change where photographs are concerned. There is no change in Lee's skin that can be discerned by looking at it, as you yourself stated. If it cannot be detected by looking at it, then that's all that matters. Whether you think it be assumed that there has is some change (which is what I gather you meant by "deduce or conclude") is immaterial, since we're only talking about what the photos illustrate.

There is also no reason why the most recent photo must be the Infobox portrait. Timeliness is one criterion for choosing the main portrait, but it is not the only one. Photo quality, accurate representation and the tone, appropriateness, clarity and dignity conveyed by how the subject is presented are others. The newer photo has a significantly more intense light, washing out some of the crispness, and it shows shadows across the bottom of his eyes cast by the frames of his glasses (and yes, he is indeed wearing them in the 2014) pic.

To LadyLotus, I think Sockpuppet was trying to make a point of contrasting the Infobox portrait criteria for BLPs and BDPs, arguing that in BDPs, a significantly older "historical" photo of the subject may be used if it more accurate represents how the subject is known to the public, as in the case of say, Soupy Sales (in which I supported the removal of my my recent photo of him from the Infobox and replacement with a historical one after he died). However, I think it's a big stretch to call a photo from 2007 a "historical photo". Nightscream (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for better phrasing my argument. Another example would be that of Michael Jackson (Bad as opposed to This Is It or a later-year photograph). However I am convinced by your point pertaining to photograph quality and this debate can be amicably closed. Thank you for letting me learn something. Cheers, The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 06:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet2014, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sockpuppet2014! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, so if you think we are wrong then please tell us. But users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block - read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, what is the problem here? What is wrong with my username? The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 06:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from my recent infobox photograph reversion, I do no think I have made any "negative" edits. Was this block erroneous? Thank you very much. The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 06:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case I really cannot understand how my username is "profane". My career here was just off to a start and this block is very damaging to my reputation. --The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 08:24, 16 June 2014 (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).

Sockpuppet2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think Mr Case accidentally blocked me. The rationale for blocking me is illogical and I fail to see how my username is "obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia". My very few edits have all been made in good faith and this is the way I will continue tto edit. Accusing me of being something I obviously am not is most saddening. The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 9:33 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Your username strongly suggests that you are violating Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts. Editing within the community with a username that suggests you are flouting one of its key policies is clearly going to be disruptive. Please select a new username. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:22, 16 June 2014 (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.

Sir, I do make sockpuppets in real life, but shall refrain from editing related articles because of potential COI. How do I go about changing a name? Will User:Tungsten Tiger meet criteria? Thanks. The Sockpuppet (talk to the hand) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be seen unless you use the {{unblock-un}} template. --Jakob (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I saw it. Tungsten Tiger is absolutely fine. I'll unblock your account so that you can file a change of name request - to do so, go to this form and fill in your current username (Sockpuppet2014), your requested username (Tungsten Tiger) and the reason for the change (to avoid confusion and issues with the username guidlines) in the appropriate places. Save the page, and you're done; a bureaucrat will make tha ctual change for you and will redirect all of your user pages to the new name. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]