User talk:BerylTurns50

Welcome!

Hello, BerylTurns50! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Faye Sewell has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/people/Faye-Sewell/1075059210.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked 1 week for sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As Confirmed by CheckUser. –MuZemike 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued abuse of multiple accounts, I have now extended your block to indefinite. Regards, –MuZemike 15:09, 19 September 2010 (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).

BerylTurns50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I have been blocked is because I set up a new account after this account had been, I think, indefinitely blocked. To rescue an article that was on the verge of being deleted unfairly I created my new account. My intention was moral, and my contribution to wikipedia under that username was helpful. Had I waited until a block I thought was indefinite was removed, articles I had taken time and effort on would have been removed without second thought. I cannot understand why I have been repeatedly blocked when my contributions to wikipedia have been particularly useful. Regards BerylTurns50 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:EVADE - Editors may not, under any circumstance, create a new account to continue editing after being blocked. If you disagree with a block you can always appeal it, and if an article has been deleted in the meantime, you can always ask for a WP:REFUND. I equally note that five accounts have been accused of being the same editor, which is more then an incidental new account. Due to this i am declining your unblock request, since you don't seem to understand that (ab)using multiple accounts is not permitted under any circumstance. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:22, 30 September 2010 (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).

BerylTurns50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, and thanks for the reply. I fully understand the comments but would like to know, if ever, my account may be unblocked. I have contributed strongly to wikipedia and would like to continue doing so. Much thanks BerylTurns50 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have wholly failed to address the reason for your block, which was emplaced because of your using at least four accounts to attempt to influence a debate at WP:AfD. Given that your reason as stated above was to preserve the article, which is a wholly insufficient reason, what other reason would you like to present to justify your being unblocked?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 30 September 2010 (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).

BerylTurns50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, and thanks again for the message. My comments above were not in reference to an article for deletion - but an article nominated for a seven day trial. (I don't think this is the correct terminology, but I trust you understand what I mean). I was not aware that using multiple accounts was against the principles of wikipedia. Furthermore, because such accounts were used frequently to edit wikipedia in a positive and useful way, (and each account focusing on different parts of wikipedia) my assumption was that I could use those accounts for positive use. I've since learnt this is a breach of wikipedia's policies, and would not continue doing this. My primary concern was that some editors use wikipedia's rules as a way of inversely affecting articles and the quality of them - robotic if you will; this is why I used various tactics to defend what I see as an otherwise good quality online encyclopedia. I would never use multiple accounts again, and insist even harder that my contributions have been of a great quality. Please don't allow previous mistakes to cease an otherwise useful and pro-active contributor. Regards BerylTurns50 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You cannot have believed that using four different identities to support your article in this AfD discussion was a legitimate use of multiple accounts. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2010 (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).

BerylTurns50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At the time it seemed as if I was protecting what I thought was a legitimate page. I was further blocked indefinitely when I created one further account to continue editing when this account was blocked. That was merely for me to further improve articles that had the possibility of being removed within seven days. Sometimes people can get carried away and I have learned from my mistake. I fully appreciate it was wrong, and will not behave in any way like that in the future. My first love is for Wikipedia and it's very concept as free information. Because of that my aim has only ever been to improve Wikipedia. I will never violate wikipedia's rules again. Please take note that I respect this website and everyone involved. I hope that my account may be unblocked so that I may contribute to this encyclopedia. Thank you BerylTurns50 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to request unblock at your original, oldest account; you may possibly be unblocked there if you provide a list of all your various accounts, including those we haven't blocked yet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:55, 1 October 2010 (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).

BerylTurns50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the only account open and so therefore it has now become my default one. Other accounts take me here, and I can only edit THIS talk page and only under THIS name. I assume this will of course be my main identity for returning to wiki, which, of course I am fine with. The other "sock puppets" have been banned as I thought had been made clear? As far as I am aware that is the entire issue, and I would very very much like to return to wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You have yet to address the reasons for your block. Block evasion is a serious matter and the use of multiple accounts in order to influence the outcome of a consensus-based discussion is a gross breach of the community's trust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 2 October 2010 (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.

I am not happy with your earlier explanations here. You created your first account, as far as I can see, in February 2008, although you do not have appeared to use it regularly until September 2008. Two questions; are you really asking us to believe that an account in regular use from September '08 would be unaware of the fact that abusive sockpuppetry was not allowed? And under what account name did you edit between February and September 2008? Because your edits clearly show that at the latest by September '08 you knew your way around here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I started editing recently after I became more interested in wikipedia as an idea - a project. I remembered I had an account, and so restarted contributing to wikipedia under that name. I guess I therefore have been here a while but I had not then studied wikipedia in great depth or detail, and I have only learned much about wikipedia protocol recently. As each bit becomes relevant I learn about it. Regarding February/September I cannot be sure when I first registered. My ability to edit and contribute clearly and concisely is down to my English language skills, and by "knowing my way around" I assume you are referring to the quality of my edits. That doesn't take into account my understanding of the minutiae and detail of wikipedia that I, now, have only just begun to explore. Thanks. BerylTurns50 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2010 (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).

BerylTurns50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not failed to address the reason for my block. I have requested to be unblocked five times - and have gone into sufficient detail many times above. I'm not sure what else I can say. And please remember this is the only page I can continue to edit. I have no other way of communicating with you guys.BerylTurns50 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have violated community norms to such an extent that I believe it would be contrary to the communities will to unblock you at this time. You have had at least five accounts active at the same time during the last month, an egregious violation of our policy on abusing multiple accounts. I advise you to consider the standard offer for blocked users. Desist in editing Wikipedia at all, under any identity for several months and try again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2010 (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.

Note to reviewer: the oldest account this person has is User:Keith1234, active most recently three weeks ago. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the account which, as I point out above, was created in February 2008 and used from September 2008. Whether the amount of usage would imply a reasonable understanding of wikipedia must be a judgement call on the part of the revieing admin. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]