User talk:Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian

April 2017

You will be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at University of Northern Colorado. Also, don't troll editors who revert your vandalism and warn you, such as User:ElKevbo. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18086 was submitted on Apr 20, 2017 15:29:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23

I'm not a checkuser, just a garden variety admin, but this account quacks like a garden variety duck, parted hair or not. Jonathunder (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't see your IP address because I am not a checkuser. But when good friends have similar editing patterns they may appear to be sockpuppets of the same person. On Wikipedia, we refer to that idea with the metaphor that something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a duck. Even if you are not the same person as Mr. Election, both accounts have been disruptive. Concentrate on doing well in school, and edit Wikipedia when you've matured a bit. Jonathunder (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True what User:Jonathunder says; also, WP:NOTFORUM is very much to the fore- give it a read, it will illustrate expected priorities. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} Okay thanks for telling me now. I didn't know about this today.

It looks like you made productive edits on Arp 220. Do you like astronomy? Jonathunder (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder Yeah a bit. I have made productive edits before. I realized my mistake and would like to get back on. I am honestly sorry for what I did. I just needed some experience.

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).

Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As you have noticed, I was being a troll and shouldn't have edited Wikipedia like I did. I am not a sock puppet of Mr.Election, because I created my account at home and he has edited it at his home. I should have listened to the multiple warnings, but I didn't. I have realized my mistake. I perfectly understand the reason if Wikipedia still decides to keep the ban, but I would like a time frame set, not just "indefinitely." As Jonathunder pointed out, I have made productive edits before like on the Arp 220 page. Mr. Election and I go to the same school, and that is why we edit on the same I.P. address. Like I said, I do understand if you keep me blocked. If I am unblocked, then I will continue to edit more astronomy pages and other pages that I like. Thank you guys for your time. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

By your own admission, you've attacked Wikipedia. It's very clear you have also engaged in violations of WP:MEAT. Feel free to come back in six months and apply under WP:SO and we'll consider your case at that time, but it's very clear if we unblocked you now, we'd regret it. Yamla (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2017 (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.

Yamla Oh, I didn't realize that I could apply under WP:SO. I will come back October 23, 2017 and submit my essay. Thank you. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet I honestly feel violated and I just realized after reading this article. People assumed that I was a sockpuppet way too early. Just look at the facts. I wanted to edit Wikipedia because my friend Mr.Election did. Our editing habits were different. I never edited political articles. I need a checkuser to actually reveal that I created my account on a different I:P address and give me a ban for a specific amount of time for using Wikipedia as a playground, not for being a sockpuppet. And to be honest, I only used wikipedia as a playground on Mr. Elections talk page. Also I have learned not to edit during school hours Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser has already checked your editing and found you are indeed a sockpuppet account (in this case, perhaps WP:MEAT). Additionally, by your own admission, you deliberately attacked Wikipedia and are friends with someone else doing much the same thing. You are welcome to request another unblock review, but given your history of abuse, I urge you not to get your hopes up. --Yamla (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla He didn't recruit me if that is what you were wondering. I was wondering what it would be like if I had an account. I created an account and only vandalized his page. I didn't do anything wrong. I don't even have the same editing style... Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't do anything wrong", that shows you absolutely aren't ready for an unblock at this time. You know perfectly well you engaged in multiple instances of vandalism. If you are able to be honest about your actions, you are still eligible for unblock consideration six months after your last edit, as per WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I didn't do anything wrong as in I wasn't a sockpuppet. I did vandalize Mr.Election's page. 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk)[reply]

{{subst:SPI report checkuser=yes |sock1= Mr.Election |sock2= Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian |sock3= |ip1= |ip2= |ip3= |evidence= 1. My friend and I go to the same school. I created an account because I wanted to know how it felt to edit Wikipedia. I was blocked for being a sockpuppet. I should have been blocked for vandalizing Mr.Election's page. I was also wrongly accused of vandalism to the University of Northern Colorado page. I changed grammar on the page (which I learned not to do). I was apparently trolling the user who reverted this "vandalism." But I actually asked him what I did wrong, genuinely. They jumped too quickly assuming I am a sockpuppet. I am a Life Scout, and I pride myself on being honest. The Scout law tells us to be trustworthy. I pride myself in being honest. If I wanted to vandalize, I would have done worse stuff. No person who doesn't edit Wikipedia cannot find Mr.Election's page. So I admit to vandalizing that. If I wanted to vandalize a page, I would not go up to a university page and change grammar. Also, Mr.Election and I have different editing styles. Thank you for your time. -Graham |admincomment=

Thank you for being honest, for recognizing and stating your mistakes, and for resolving not to repeat them. You can ask politely for the administrator who blocked you to unblock, bearing in mind the answer may be no. Jonathunder (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder Will do. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I give up. I will not be editing Wikipedia anymore.Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 1989 12:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry up and delete my page. I give up.Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]