User talk:HomieG-man
Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
- We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
- Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --LT910001 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
HomieG-man, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi HomieG-man! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
June 2014
[edit]
Hello. I noticed that you made a change to articles, PBR&B and American Idiot, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC) |
HomieG-man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock of MariaJaydHicky. I've never even heard of them. I think that you are making the mistake of lumping anyone who argues with Dan56 into one pot. I am not socking, so please unblock me. HomieG-man (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If we unblocked everyone blocked for sockpuppetry who said they weren't sock puppets, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy now, would we? — Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
HomieG-man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
With all do respect, you've made a mistake here. Can I please see the evidence? I am not the person who you think I am, but why didn't this go to SPI or CU, which would exonerate me? Does Dan56 decide who gets blocked and why? I don't even know why you think I am this other account except that I disagreed with Dan56, but if you look at Dan56's contributions you'll se that he has accused several accoutns of being socks lately, but I am not one. HomieG-man (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Daniel Case consider the possibility that Dan56 trys to blackball anyone who he doesn't like. I deserve due process, because no one has even tried to explain why they think I am a sock. HomieG-man (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Callanecc, why did you do this to me? Dan is accusing lots of people to get them away from his pages. I deserve a CU to prove I am innocent!!! HomieG-man (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Well, you CU is here and done, and the verdict is guilty of sockpuppetry. Annie Onymous (talk · contribs) is yours. Don't play us for idiots, its the fastest way for us to just say no. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
DoRD, can you please help here. I am indeffed without any evidence or due process. HomieG-man (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)