User talk:SkepticAnonymous

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Uri Geller, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mathonius (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want.

RE: Edits to List of people from Missouri

While I appreciate you fixing the linking error between Tom Egan the baseball player and Thomas Egan the gangster, I must ask that you please not use the list as a forum to express a political opinion or use improper humor as happend with your subsequent move of Rush Limbaugh to the Criminals subcategory. While indeed he is a convicted felon, he is best-known for his work as a broadcaster and political commentator. Thanks again for the Egan fix. Sector001 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hey, SkepticAnonymous, I came across your comment on Forward (generic name of socialist publications) while looking at the Recent Changes page. I'm not sure how serious you were about speedy deletion, but purely for future reference: you can request a page be speedily deleted my marking it with {{db-(rationale)}}, where you replace (rationale) with the letter and number of the relevant speedy deletion criterion. So, if I wanted to mark a page to be deleted as a copyright infringement (which is criterion G12), I would put {{db-g12}} in a new line at the top of the page. Some criteria, like A7 (non-notable), have subheaders; you could write {{db-person}} or {{db-corp}} instead of {{db-a7}} to flag articles about non-notable people and corporations, respectively. (In case you were wondering, because it bothered me for a long time, "db" here stands for "delete because").

Anyhoo, the Forward article doesn't really meet any of the CSD criteria, which are generally pretty strictly-interpreted. You did the right thing by PRODding it. Thanks! And go ahead and ignore this if I'm tellng you stuff you already know :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation

This comment is completely unacceptable in real life, and a policy violation on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia's "No personal attacks" policy. If you're open to advice, I recommend you apologize and remove or edit your remark. Thank you for your time and consideration. Tomer^talk 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Help

How do I fix a page where someone didn't sign their comment? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You can add {{subst:unsigned|user name or IP}} to the end of their comment, filling it in with their username or IP. For other unsigned templates, see here. :) ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Forward. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Syrthiss (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are WP:SPA sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to User:Syrthiss to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are [[WP:SPA]] sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to [[User:Syrthiss]] to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are [[WP:SPA]] sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to [[User:Syrthiss]] to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please reconsider this: the "users" in question are [[WP:SPA]] sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets engaged in vandalizing a page, who did not respond to warnings. Addditionally, I was in the middle of writing a request to [[User:Syrthiss]] to request advice on how to proceed. It is not my intention to cause disruption but to PREVENT disruption of wikipedia by the malicious adding of bad information to pages. As you can see from my history I am trying to learn and follow the required policies and pages but it is VERY hard to do so because nothing is easy to search for or find. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous#top|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Additionally: the IP VANDALISM on the page is continuing unabated: [1]. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally: My [2] request for page protection was finally answered. You can see that all I was doing was reverting vandalism by WP:SPA sockpuppets and IP sockpuppets. Again, it was NEVER my intention to disrupt Wikipedia. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Skeptic, a few things: first, your unblock request as it is written is not likely to be accepted; you talk about what other people are doing, but you don't acknowledge that you yourself were in the wrong. I appreciate that you may not have known the rules about edit-warring, but you do have to acknowledge that what you were doing is wrong, and that you'll refrain from doing it again.

Second, these edits you're reverting, at least from what I've seen, are not vandalism. Vandalism is a charged word around here, and you need to be careful about the way you use it. Those edits could easily be made in good faith, and so they're not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1st - I did not know about any rule regarding number of reverts in a day, but I won't do it again if that is what you are asking for.

2nd - I fully disagree with your assessment of the situation; this vandalism - and it is that - is a result of a group of people trying to politically charge wikipedia and deliberately break WP:NPOV. This is a full attack by IP-based sockpuppets who began creating fake, single-purpose accounts, and that is what I was reverting. Next time, I will not be so fast on reverting but I WILL be much quicker in reporting the vandal behavior via the channels I have now learned about. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

POV editing is not the same as vandalism. It's not acceptable for Wikipedia, but that does not make it vandalism. The distinction is important. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive re-addition of unsourced content via sockpuppets isn't vandalism? I find that very hard to swallow. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it is not. As I said, it's not acceptable, but it's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

3rd - I also must object to the timing of this block, which seems deliberately designed to keep me from responding directly to comments and questions. I was halfway through editing a comment to Syrthiss asking for direction and advice, and now cannot speak regarding this; I note that the admin who blocked me ALSO removed half the content of my request on that page which I find very suspicious. I am trying to assume good faith but being unable to respond makes that quite difficult and feels very much like deliberate harassment. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I also must note that the admin who blocked me, Edgar181, has not even had the common decency to respond here on my talk page. So, I'm still waiting. As far as I can tell, his block was designed merely to harass me for filing a report on the vandalism in the first place, which I find very laughable since I was dealing with a nasty infestation of IP and SPA-based vandalism. If I've learned ONE thing from this, it's that bothering to report anything or keep Wikipedia clean of vandalism isn't worth the effort since all that'll happen is I'll get some rude person like him attacking me. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)