User talk:RobertvanderVelden

Sockpuppet Investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Virtualizer. Thank you. Styx (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Styx I have only used one account in the past months and that is for sharing important knowledge about my investigation of the song Doctor Robert on the talk pages. Please study this information thoroughly and don't pay too much attention to what happened many years ago. RobertvanderVelden (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

I was considering an indefinite block even before I discovered your sockpuppetry, but that sockpuppetry clinches it. This account has been blocked indefinitely. Don't edit again unless and until an administrator agrees to unblock your original account, which is unlikely to happen unless you undertake not to continue posting your self-promotional vanity material to Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and therefore have no idea what you mean by sockpuppeting. I am a scientific researcher however and by what you state about the content I placed on the talk pages, I can tell you haven't studied it. Please do before you judge it. RobertvanderVelden (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that you really don't know what sockpuppetry means, read the message above to which you have already replied, so you have certainly seen it. You know full well that you haven been using this account to evade a block on at least one other account. (Quite likely more than one.) JBW (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBWI wasn't aware of evading a block. What I do know is that the content I delivered on the talk pages is very different from that of my earlier account Virtualizer. It uses very serious facts and sources. And the investigation continues with or without Wikipedia. RobertvanderVelden (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW I now logged into my Dutch account which apparently still works. Am I supposed to edit English talk pages with this account? RobertvanderVelden (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on Dutch Wikipedia is up to editors on Dutch Wikipedia, and is no concern of mine.

It is usual practice for a blocked editor to be allowed access to their user talk page, so that they can request an unblock, and post other relevant messages relating to the block. (That talk page access can be removed if it is used unconstructively.) Other than that, you are not permitted to edit in any way anywhere on Wikipedia as long as you have an account which is blocked. Also, unless there are special reasons for making an exception, any unblock request should be made on the talk page of an editor's original account. JBW (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW If this is true, I can be blocked because of another account that hasn't been used for years. Please let me know if this is the case. RobertvanderVelden (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start contributing in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are willing to undertake not to return to the kind of things which led to your being blocked, then you can request that an administrator remove the block. Unless and until that happens, you aren't allowed to edit English Wikipedia. I really don't see what is difficult to understand about that. If you wish to continue to publish the kind of stuff yu have been posting here, then there are plenty of blogging sites, social media sites, and other kinds of sites where you are free to do so, but Wikipedia is not one of them. I also see that many years ago you said that you wouldn't continue to do things which you have in fact continued to do. JBW (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for your "investigation", you are of course perfectly free to continue it "without Wikipedia", but Wikipedia is not for publishing original research. JBW (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW Nevertheless my research might cause Sir Paul McCartney to review his statement that the song is about Robert Freymann. So what is on the subject pages of Wikipedia might be farther from the truth than what I've placed on the talk pages regarding this topic. RobertvanderVelden (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably no point in spending time trying to clarify the issues for you, because others have already put in effort to try to do so, to no avail, and I doubt that anything I can say will enable you to suddenly understand points which you have repeatedly failed to take in when others have explained them. Nevertheless, I shall make just one more try to clarify this one point, and after that I will leave it. Wikipedia does not seek to include any and every kind of information. It seeks to cover only matter which has been covered in reliable published sources. What Paul McCartney says on the matter has received extensive coverage in numerous reliable sources. Someone coming along and creating a Wikipedia account and posting to Wikipedia is not a reliable source, for the very simple reason that anyone can do that, and post anything they like. JBW (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW Indeed, there is no point. Everything that has been written still does not give a definitive answer to the question who the song is about. RobertvanderVelden (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]