User talk:TheAirsoftPlayer
Feel free to contact me here. However, if you are asking for help with an article, keep in mind that I don't touch extremely controversial articles (religion, politics or anything politically controversial, or anything about the origin of life or of the universe)
Blocked
[edit]It appears that you are User:DoNotFuckWithMe and have been abusing multiple accounts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
TheAirsoftPlayer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't fully understand what is happening. I have multiple constructive edits and no vandalism ever, or any negative actions whatsoever since my username change unblock. Look at my contributions to Airsoft (fixed missing comma, fixed technical terminology distinguishing kinetic energy from velocity, and clarified some unclear sentence structure, etc.), my writing of Thunder-B (Airsoft grenade) from scratch (I still need to find sources to cite and learn the formatting for citing sources, as I already knew the information, but it is clearly constructive and not vandalism or abuse), and two other articles (Twin Cities Paintball & Airsoft and Giant Airsoft Game), which I created in good faith and they were not vandalism, but it was determined that I did not show that the subjects were notable, so they were speedy deleted. All in all, considering that I just joined a day ago, I would say that I have a lot of constructive edits packed into that day. So, I don't see the problem. If this is an accusation of sock puppetry, as it appears to be, please expedite the process of having a checkuser check this, as that will disprove the accusation.
Decline reason:
(1) It's clear that you've abused multiple accounts and (2) we don't need editors with such a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:33, 2 July 2015 (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.
TheAirsoftPlayer (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Patrolling admin, please see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] before considering unblock. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: I looked over the numbered links you posted above, and they lead to accounts with some offensive usernames, which it makes sense are blocked. Whoever made them, if it is the same person for all of them, clearly has no moral objection or technical difficulty evading blocks to make new accounts. I would guess that whoever is doing that is desparate for attention and is seeking it out like a misbehaved preschooler. I just have one little question: why in the world would that user, who you have accused me of being, ever spend so much time appealing a block as I am doing right now, when they clearly have demonstrated that they could just evade the block. Also, the sock puppets have no useful contributions that I can find in their user contributions list. No good-faith edits, let alone constructive edits. That is not the case for me. Sure, I got off to a rough start and had a little attitude problem with my username (which was not very appropriate but I did't realize anyone cared). I also made one or two edits in questionable taste, by changing an existing redirect page of a vulgar term to redirect to a movie I though had coined the term (I redirected Dipshit to Happy Gilmore and said that I had done so on Talk:Happy Gilmore. Once I changed usernames from User:TheDipShit to my current username and got unblocked, I recognized the error of my ways and, on my own initiative, reverted my own edit to the redirect page (the related talk page post had already been reverted by someone else). Basically, once my username-related unblock request was accepted and I got my current username, I cleaned up what was left of my mess and made only constructive or at least good-faith edits. Two of the pages I created, Twin Cities Paintball & Airsoft and Giant Airsoft Game, were nominated for and deleted by speedy deletion for not demonstrating notability, as I created them in the middle of the night and did not take the time to find sources regarding the nber of airsoft players attending, which would have proved notability. In one of those two cases, I politely asked the deleting admin to check the Facebook page for Giant Airsoft Game event, which would show 300+ attendees at the last occurence and similar numbers previous times, thus proving notability. When they did not so, I dropped the matter and accepted the significant loss of the time I put into the page. I never bothered to contest the other case. Regardless, I was not accused of vandalism in either case, just a good-faith edit with the mistake of not proving notability. Judging by how close together the times were on those sock puppets you posted links to above, I would say that the person responsible has some way of evading IP autoblocks to create sock puppets immediately after an account is blocked. They also don't seem to care about their blocked accounts wnough to spend as long as I am typing this message to appeal a block. They are disposable in the eyes of the person responsible. I wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but I honor the policies (including the one against sock puppetry), so my account is not disposable to me, and I need it unblocked to resume my constructive edits. How much longer before a checkuser will have time to clear my good name? By the way, unlike my old landline connection, my 4G connection seems to have a very dynamic IP address. This is outside of my control, as I cannot always maintain the same IP address when I turn my mobile data connection off temporarily, and I cannot afford the data charges from background apps using my data all day if I leave it on all the time. So, I am not pulling any tricks with my IP address - it isn't my choice that it is dynamic. I guess that could be used for block evasion, although I am not sure (since I have no experience with doing so). If the sock puppet vandal is in the same range as me, perhaps a range block on signed-out editing and account creation would stop them, if they are still at it. I am not making any edits, including signed-out edits from this or any other device or connection device, since I know I blocked, and I am still not attempting to evade it, even though my block is for something I did not do.
This is clearly not your first account. Can you tell us the name of the account you used prior to the 26th of June ? - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Thunder-B (Airsoft grenade) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thunder-B (Airsoft grenade) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder-B (Airsoft grenade) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rayman60 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)