User talk:Damien1234567890

Hi Damien1234567890! 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 experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

00:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

May 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) 02:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|The reason why I have been blocked is not true. I'm not a sockpuppet of some Joshua account. If you compare my contributions or editing patterns to his, they aren't even similar. The only thing that I have in common with him is the edit I made on the [[Luke Brugnara]] page. If there was a problem with the contributions I made to that article, I was more than willing to address them on the talk page. I put a lot of time into checking references and cleaning up that page, and I'd like to have a discussion on why they were undone. Thanks for taking the time to read this. [[User:Damien1234567890|Damien1234567890]] ([[User talk:Damien1234567890#top|talk]]) 05:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)}}

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).

Damien1234567890 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Its been two weeks and nobody has gotten back to me regarding my prior request. I am not a sockpuppet of Joshualeverburg1. Our edits aren't even remotely similar. I'd appreciate it if this mistake can be resolved in a timely manner. Thankyou. Damien1234567890 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:38, 18 May 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.

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).

Damien1234567890 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was banned after being falsely suspected of being a sock puppet, and since then been considered guilty before proven innocent. I don't know how to "substantially reword" my explanation on why I should be unbanned since I didn't break any rules in the first place. I thoroughly enjoy reading Wikipedia's content, and I just want to be able to contribute to Wikipedia again. Thanks for reading. Damien1234567890 (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After a careful review, I believe that the original block is justified and is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Regardless of what your actual motive or connection to other editors may be, your most recent edit at Luke Brugnara appears to further a campaign to soften or whitewash the article, and stands out in style and substance from the balance of your editing history. Uninvited Company 20:57, 28 May 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.

I'll look into it. Uninvited Company 19:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this edit, this edit, and this edit. These edits make very similar changes: removal of "American businessperson convicted of fraud" from the short description, removal of the criminal conviction from the infobox, changing the January 2010 bid rejection to a claim that Brugnara "submitted the incorrect paperwork", puffing up the claims about Brugnara's artwork collection, etc. I do not agree with an unblock, and I strongly oppose it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delayed response; I was expecting this request to take longer for a reply. The edits I made on the Brugnara article were solely referenced from the preexisting sources on the article, and if you initially allowed me, I was willing to explain them on the talk page. For example in regards to the Jan 2010 bid, I changed the wording to "incorrect paperwork" because nowhere in the source did I find that his $1m bid was rejected. Per the Forbes source, I made it clear the appraiser stated that the painting 'could' be a Da Vinci; not that it was a confirmed work. And regarding the other edits involving his criminal history, you guys are acting as if I blanked whole sections. I felt that I was improving Wikipedia's policy of NPOV by rewording the short description and editing the infobox. I don't think it was the crime Brugnara committed that made him notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, and I don't think it should be what defines him, much like how Martha Stewart and other celebrities' criminal history isn't the focal point of their article.

I wasn't trying to whitewash the article, and I'm not connected to the man. Prior to my block I intended to make more NPOV edits to other people's articles, and if you give me a chance I'll be sure to start a discussion on the article's talk page whenever I make a substantial edit. I do hope that you reconsider your decision. Damien1234567890 (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]