User talk:Greatesteverliveth

Admins need to investigate properly

Callanecc (talk · contribs), I am not a sockpuppet to anybody. Someone whom I was in a debate with on the talk page of a sensitive topic, sensed that I was winning the debate, and made a baseless accusation of me being a sockpuppet and instead of you admins to caution him for making a baseless accusation and dogressing from the conversation into a personal attack, you blocked me? This is impartial

What evidence or investigation did you carry out to conclude that I am a sockpuppet? I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET TO ANYONE.

Do you want to know why the Wikipedia is a hot topic? There was an argument on twitter that drew attention to the article. Go on twitter and search "Ada and Eben Yoruba" and then you will understand.

Do you due diligence and dont call me a sockpuppet again. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite (talk · contribs), C.Fred (talk · contribs)

Yamla (talk · contribs), 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs), 28bytes (talk · contribs), 331dot (talk · contribs)

Do you know the kind of bad impression it gives that 2 editors could be having a debate and one falsely accuses the other of being a sockpuppet just to get the other banned and he gets the upper hand?

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from 82nd Training Wing. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like the issue had been resolved. If you feel like it hasn't. State why. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not actually take any action to resolve the issue, nor did you state why you removed the templates. It is not my responsibility to state why -- it is your responsibility to adequately explain why your actions are not vandalism. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Ada and Eben. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba have a higher population than Benin so they have the numerical advantage over Benin to change the narrative.

I am neither Yoruba nor Benin but I can tell you, that is a very prominent Benin Staff worn by their King, the Oba.

This is just like someone arguing that the capital of US is New York and not Washington because NY is a more known city. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute over what the article should say can be resolved on the talk page. This warning has nothing to do with that. It is to tell you that an edit summary that says "Stop stealing peoples culture" is not appropriate. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Apologies. Lesson learnt. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Ada and Abere. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wont even pretend, I was a little angry. Those people are part of a propaganda organization in Nigeria known as BMC, who go on social media platforms like Facebook, twitter and now Wikipedia to change narratives and spread lies. They often come out in number trying to use their sheer size to change narratives. So why am I being blocked and not them, whereas I am just responding to what they are doing?

Anyway, kindly unblock me and give me another chance at editing. I would not comment on that talk page again. I was just trying to do good but I see now that my silence is better.

Greatesteverliveth (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock. I wont get involved in that debate again

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).

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

Request reason:

I wont even pretend, I was a little angry on that talk page. Those people are part of a propaganda organization in Nigeria known as BMC, who go on social media platforms like Facebook, twitter and now Wikipedia to change narratives and spread lies. They often come out in number trying to use their sheer size to change narratives. I was just responding to what they were doing.Greatesteverliveth (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2024 (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: Accusing people of people members of a propaganda organization, without evidence to support the claim, is a personal attack. Personal attacks are a valid reason for accounts to be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred He accused me of being a sockpuppet first. Why am I getting penalized for reacting to a defamation? Whereas the person who first made the initial false, damaging accusation against me is left to go scot free. I dont understand because I am not a sockpuppet and the accusation was made against me without proof.Greatesteverliveth (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You literally admitted to being the same person as another (blocked) account here. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite Imagine someone accusing you of being a sockpuppet solely because you share the same opinion with another editor. Its humorous to me. And I said we are siamese twins. That is sarcasm because he made a stupid accusation, I gave a stupid answer in response. Do you know how rarely siamese twins occur in this world?

An editor accused me of being a sockpuppet and without any investigation, you supported them? I didnt even know the person they linked me to was banned because the accusation was flimsy to me. It felt like he said that to me because he was losing the debate. Well I am not a sockpuppet. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite and C.Fred, will you carry out proper investigation to check if I am a sockpuppet or not? Or will I be blocked for giving a sarcastic response to an unfounded and defamatory personal attack and accusation, even though the person who made this initial false accusation is let to roam scot free? Greatesteverliveth (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I edited disruptively, not because it is in my nature to be disruptive but because there was an instruction for edits not to be made on the page, people kept editing the page and I had to reverse the edits.

Also someone wrongly accused me of being a sockpuppet. Calling a person a sockpuppet without proper investigation is a tarnishing statement. The accusation was unfounded and false. Jsut because I share the same opinion with another editor doesnt mean we are the same. I replied sarcastically that accusation that I was a "siamese twin", not because I wanted to reinforce the accusation but because I found the accusation stupid so I gave a funny response. The other editor was losing a debate and so he started making baseless accusations, and to me that was hilarious. I have a sense of humor so I couldnt help myself. I am not a sockpuppet and definitely not a siamese twin, which is even less likely.

The guy who accused me baselessly is not blocked from editing. The others who kept editing the page even though they were told to leave the page unchanged pending the outcome of the investigation of what was causing the fracas on the article, haven’t been blocked from editing either.

I am not saying I was 100% right, I don't think I was 100% wrong either.

Greatesteverliveth (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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=I edited disruptively, not because it is in my nature to be disruptive but because there was an instruction for edits not to be made on the page, people kept editing the page and I had to reverse the edits.
<br/>

Also someone wrongly accused me of being a sockpuppet. Calling a person a sockpuppet without proper investigation is a tarnishing statement. The accusation was unfounded and false. Jsut because I share the same opinion with another editor doesnt mean we are the same. I replied sarcastically that accusation that I was a "siamese twin", not because I wanted to reinforce the accusation but because I found the accusation stupid so I gave a funny response. The other editor was losing a debate and so he started making baseless accusations, and to me that was hilarious. I have a sense of humor so I couldnt help myself. I am not a sockpuppet and definitely not a siamese twin, which is even less likely. 
<br/>

The guy who accused me baselessly is not blocked from editing. The others who kept editing the page even though they were told to leave the page unchanged pending the outcome of the investigation of what was causing the fracas on the article, haven’t been blocked from editing either. 
<br/>

I am not saying I was 100% right, I don't think I was 100% wrong either.

[[User:Greatesteverliveth|Greatesteverliveth]] ([[User talk:Greatesteverliveth#top|talk]]) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (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=I edited disruptively, not because it is in my nature to be disruptive but because there was an instruction for edits not to be made on the page, people kept editing the page and I had to reverse the edits.
<br/>

Also someone wrongly accused me of being a sockpuppet. Calling a person a sockpuppet without proper investigation is a tarnishing statement. The accusation was unfounded and false. Jsut because I share the same opinion with another editor doesnt mean we are the same. I replied sarcastically that accusation that I was a "siamese twin", not because I wanted to reinforce the accusation but because I found the accusation stupid so I gave a funny response. The other editor was losing a debate and so he started making baseless accusations, and to me that was hilarious. I have a sense of humor so I couldnt help myself. I am not a sockpuppet and definitely not a siamese twin, which is even less likely. 
<br/>

The guy who accused me baselessly is not blocked from editing. The others who kept editing the page even though they were told to leave the page unchanged pending the outcome of the investigation of what was causing the fracas on the article, haven’t been blocked from editing either. 
<br/>

I am not saying I was 100% right, I don't think I was 100% wrong either.

[[User:Greatesteverliveth|Greatesteverliveth]] ([[User talk:Greatesteverliveth#top|talk]]) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (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=I edited disruptively, not because it is in my nature to be disruptive but because there was an instruction for edits not to be made on the page, people kept editing the page and I had to reverse the edits.
<br/>

Also someone wrongly accused me of being a sockpuppet. Calling a person a sockpuppet without proper investigation is a tarnishing statement. The accusation was unfounded and false. Jsut because I share the same opinion with another editor doesnt mean we are the same. I replied sarcastically that accusation that I was a "siamese twin", not because I wanted to reinforce the accusation but because I found the accusation stupid so I gave a funny response. The other editor was losing a debate and so he started making baseless accusations, and to me that was hilarious. I have a sense of humor so I couldnt help myself. I am not a sockpuppet and definitely not a siamese twin, which is even less likely. 
<br/>

The guy who accused me baselessly is not blocked from editing. The others who kept editing the page even though they were told to leave the page unchanged pending the outcome of the investigation of what was causing the fracas on the article, haven’t been blocked from editing either. 
<br/>

I am not saying I was 100% right, I don't think I was 100% wrong either.

[[User:Greatesteverliveth|Greatesteverliveth]] ([[User talk:Greatesteverliveth#top|talk]]) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

because there was an instruction for edits not to be made on the page, people kept editing the page and I had to reverse the edits

What should you have done in this circumstance, or what will you do the next time a similar situation comes up? —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr C.Fred (talk · contribs), I will make sure I don't exceed the 3R rule. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Black Kite (talk · contribs) and Mr C.Fred (talk · contribs), I would kindly like to know if I answered the questions appropriately and I addressed the issue(s) that resulted ine getting blocked and ultimately, if I am getting a second chance. Greatesteverliveth (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:DR and WP:GAB. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]