User talk:Thabishop1

Welcome!

Hello, Thabishop1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as McCreary, Gentry Sr, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WuhWuzDat 21:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch ·comms 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article quite a bit, so please see my additional comments on User talk:Fetchcomms#Gentry McCreary. Chzz ► 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit more there. Chzz ► 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

At User talk:Thabishop you were given instructions on how to appeal against your block if you wish to do so. Simply starting another account to evade the block is not an acceptable alternative way of dealing with the block. This is known in Wikipedia as sockpuppetry, and is in itself grounds for an indefinite block. In addition to this any page created by a blocked user may be immediately deleted, under the guidelines on speedy deletion. Consequently this account has been blocked indefinitely and the article you created will be deleted. If you wish to appeal against your block please do so at User talk:Thabishop. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

I woke up this morning with a block on my IP and my article taken down and I dont understand why? I worked with an admin to ensure that my article was acceptable and I am still being slammed, can someone please help me by not only explaining what happened and helping me fix it....

This account was blocked because it is a sockpuppet of your other account, Thabishop, which was blocked indefinitely in July. You can see the reason for your block explained in this account's block log. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know who (Thabishop) is. This is a brand new account that has nothing to do with (Thabishop). Can some one help me repost my article it was worked on and okay'd by another admin (fetch·comms) before I went to sleep last night... If you dont believe me then go take a look at (fetch·comms) talk page and you will see... This is soo frustrating, I believe this to be cyberbullying!!! {{helpme}}

You two just happened to have almost the same name and write the same article? Yeah, right. See this page. If you had requested unblock with your original account rather than evading the block without notice and reposted it, no further deletion would have been made. —fetch ·comms 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way that you can restore the article? Thabishop1 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not going to right now because you created it in violation of your block, and it is you who is at fault right now. If you leave for a few months, without creating another account, then request unblock from the original account and promise not to create more sockpuppets, you are more likely to be unblocked, and then you can ask for the article's undeletion. —fetch ·comms 19:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have no connection to the Thabishop account.... Why should my article and time that we put into the article be punished? Thabishop1 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious that you're the same person. —fetch ·comms 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that what you assume is law... There is no valid proof that shows that I have a connection to that page other than the same article and a username that has a 1 charactor difference. I truly dont understand why the wiki admins make it so hard for newcombers to become a member of the wikipedia family... There has been others who would like to see this article posted for Mr. McCreary becuase of his serious bout with cancer. Maybe that could be the reason why its being posted numerous times. What happened to the statement that you made that this article would not be taken down based on reference merit?Thabishop1 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to request unblock, please do so. If you continue to argue on this page, it will be locked. You are currently blocked; arguing isn't helping you. The article was deleted not because of the content, but because of the author. —fetch ·comms 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please unblock me? Thabishop1 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand the guide to appealing blocks fully and then use the {{unblock}} template if you want to make an unblock request. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please

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).

Thabishop1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No, as it seemed like Thabishop previously used an undisclosed sockpuppet, User:Dapub12, and a check by a CheckUser shows you are in the same area as Thabishop. Coupled with your username and editing style, and the fact that you made the same article with exactly the same content as the deleted Gentry McCreary Sr, means you fail the duck test and you should stop arguing. —fetch ·comms 20:07, 16 August 2010 (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).

Thabishop1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are 4 people attempting to get this page setup, thats why there are various versions of this article posted under different names

Decline reason:

No-one is going to believe that two editors independently create the same name, one with a numeral suffix, and edit the same article. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:22, 16 August 2010 (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.

Meatpuppets, now? Doesn't matter; still not a good thing. All four should not make new accounts, or edit for a few months, and then one should come back to their original account, request unblock, and ask for it to be undeleted. See this page, too. —fetch ·comms 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again how are we supose to know that... all we know is that we are being banned with out explanation... It seemes that this is one big misunderstanding on everyones part... A lil empathy goes along way for everyone instead of strong arming Thabishop1 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that the four of you have in common that makes it so important that this page be on English Wikipedia? — $Jeff G. ツ$ 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was and there continues to be an explanation. You are either the same person who keeps making the same article even though their other accounts have been blocked; or, as you claim, you are 4 different people working together (together, as the page was the same each time) who are considered meatpuppets. I have given you the standard offer. The article also appears to have significant copyright issues, and it will not be restored. I'm going to ask you again to stop arguing, take the standard offer, and not repeat the behavior that has gotten you (and/or these other people) blocked. —fetch ·comms 20:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G.

This article is important because Mr. McCreary served as the backbone of the Black Christian Gospel movement. Mr. McCreary has been diagnosed with cancer that is terminal and we all thought that after getting his history documented and peoperly referenced (which we have done) that by adding him to wikipedia would lift his spirits. Which it has done, but now it has been taken down because of a misunderstanding that has gone entirely too far. Thabishop1 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetchcomms

Thank you for all of your time and help in towards editing and establishing the article. Its unfortunate that we can not come to some sort of agreement or understanding aside from becoming inactive for a 6 month time period. I pray that you will find it in your heart to look past this issue and use a little empathy when handeling this issue, especially when this is based on a good deed for a gentleman who is gravely ill that dedicated his his life towards the improvement and expansion of Gospel Music. Thabishop1 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]