User talk:CptSparrot

Tau Ceti

I reverted your edit; openexoplanet.org is not a WP:RS, it appears to be effectively a wiki. Such sites are flat prohibited as references due to the danger of WP:CIRCULAR. If there is confirmation of e (and the article I remember read a while back was somewhat worrisome), please find a usable reference. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: Oh ok, in a sci-news article i found this:

'In a new study, the same team confirmed the existence of tau Ceti e and f and detected two completely new planets, tau Ceti g and h' This is the article: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/tau-ceti-exoplanets-05117.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CptSparrot (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the article (or a version of it) that I recall was worrisome. Generally, confirmation is performed by a different group. Having the same group confirm itself is dubious, particularly when they admit having announced several planets which they now concede didn't exist. I'd say this was still unconfirmed.

By the way, when writing on a talk page, please end your comments with a quadruple tilde ("~~~~"). Wikipedia will replace that with a string which gives your userid and timestamp, a necessary addition for later readers to keep track of who said what to whom and when. I've added a signature for you above (based on the edit history), so the above gets the right information. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

What? I have no idea why an admin has blocked my account. This is the first time I am accused for socketpuppetry and I don't even have idea why.

Decline reason:

We regularly block accounts that are being used for block evasion, which this account is. Talk page access revoked to prevent further disruption. You can appeal by your original account. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:47, 6 February 2019 (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.