User talk:The Cosmos Master

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

QUESTION What can I do? I got blocked from editing, and I said sorry but no-one is listening to me and now there talking about removing my talkpage access. I only want to make constructive edits. Shall I create a new account and make constructive edis from that?--The Cosmos Master (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, quite bluntly, GO AWAY for at least 6 months, and then we'll see. DO NOT make another account, it will just get blocked as a sockpuppet. Your continued inability to "get the point" has those of us who've interacted with you concerned for your future ability to contribute positively. Alternatively, email ArbCom as noted at the very bottom of the page. —Darkwind (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: if you really want to show that you can contribute positively, then go contribute at another Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Commons, English Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc. etc., without getting blocked/banned/sanctioned for misbehavior there -- and no more editing here, at all, until you are unblocked. After 6 months or so, we may be willing to consider allowing you to return, as per the standard offer —Darkwind (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GT Advanced Technologies?

I added the GT Advanced Technologies page to complement an addition I made to the Twin Creeks Technologies page. It seems to me that if the Twin Creeks Technologies page exists, then a page should exist for the company that purchased them (i.e. GT Advanced Technologies). I took the info on GT Advanced Technologies from their web page and summarized it. Anyway, I don't really understand your criteria. A Twin Creeks Technologies page without an accompanying GT Advanced Technologies page seems incomplete Tomdinan (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

I've just blocked you indef for abusing multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Cosmos Master. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

The Cosmos Master (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 part of these sock puppets. The only account that is mine is The Cosmos Bot which I admited to ages ago. I spend all my time fighting vandalism and I am not a scock puppet. Please help me. --The Cosmos Master (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is confirmed by a checkuser, and I can see a good amount of overlap on some pretty obscure articles. I'm afraid it does appear that there is some kind of relationship between the accounts; perhaps you could expand on this a little more? Kuru (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (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.

Another unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

The only account that is mine is The Cosmos Bot which has been inactive for ages. I have other people sharing my IP so that could explain it. I have never vandalised wikipedia and just look at my contributions most of them are either fighting vandalism, Warning vandals or helping newbies. Does this mean nothing ? I refuse to accept this block of sock puppetery and I will clear my name. I am a good editer so please consider this when reviewing my block. When there was a sock puppet investigation I could of added my evidence but sadley it was over to quick and I only logged on a few seconds before I was blocked. Other users who have worked with me before will know I am a good editer whos only intentions are to help wikipedia.--The Cosmos Master (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Also Confirmed is the vandal account Yummy Garlic Bread (talk · contribs), which I have just blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2013 (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.

Another unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I am very sorry for the trouble my IP caused. I have not been responsible for the vandalism however. On the list of so called sock puppets I have only one other account called The Cosmos bot. This account I was saving to get permission to run a bot. The other accounts may be from my IP but I am not responsible for them. I have spent ages fighting vandalism on this account and I was so annoyed when I learned I had been blocked. I also thought it was mean to block this account indefinitely considering I have never vandalised Wikipedia on any account. If I am unblocked I will continue my work on the Counter-Vandalism Unit and helping newbies on the welcoming committee. Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal if I am unblocked I will not fail you and I will prove I can be trusted because I am sure the community will not show me as much respect as they once did because of this situation. --The Cosmos Master (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to edit I recommend that you must address the reason for your block. You have not done so by continually denying that the other accounts are not associated with you and this will not help in getting you unblock. Your only methods of getting unblock at this point is either contacting BASC or taking the standard offer (there is no guarantee that you will be unblocked if you take the standard offer). If you do decide to contact BASC, I highly recommend that you do not use the same reasons that you have been using. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:40, 11 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been very foolish indeed. I am ashamed to admit that it is true and I was indeed a sock puppet master. I am even more ashamed to admit that dispite the check users evidence I tried to lie and deney knowedge of the vandal accounts. I would like to say sorry for the trouble I caused. I am very ashamed with myself. I would also like to be granted with a second chance on wikipedia. I know I have been stupid and foolish nut it made me realise how much I enjoyed helping wikipedia aswell. If I am unblocked I promise NEVER to vandalise wikipedia again and I promise I will never create another account aswell. I regret my actions. If I am unblocked I will contine my work in the welcoming committee and new page patroll. I will turn over a new leaf. I am so so sorry for this and I would like a second chance to help wikipedia and I will neer return to vandalism. I ask the wikipedian community for forgivness for my crimes and I will not fail them if I am unblocked. Thank you for reading.--The Cosmos Master (talk) 11:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Whilst honesty and contrition are appreciated, and will certainly help your case, as Elockid pointed out above, you are now at the stage where your routes to unblock are limited to ArbCom or the standard offer. I would suggest the latter, myself - take six months off, don't sock during that period, and then come back and request a review of your block at the administrator's noticeboard. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:49, 13 November 2013 (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.

Not vandalism

Resolved

– Good faith edit restored and noted at User talk:Daycase#November 2013. It's always a good idea to check how new users are, assume good faith and post welcome templates (if not previously placed). -- Trevj (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to look a little closer before blindly reverting my changes to the Akinwale Arobieke page and accusing me of vandalism. Ther single change I made was to fill in his motives, which were absent before my change and accurate after it. Accusing me of vandalism does me a disservice. Daycase (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad. It looked like vandalism to me.--The Cosmos Master (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok I know I have been very daft theses last couple of months by creating sock puppets but I would like a second chance making constructive edits on wikipedia. I understand that what I did was wrong but I think my indeff should be reduced to a month. If it is reduced I will take that time away from wikipedia then return and make constructive edits.--The Cosmos Master (talk) 2:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Decline reason:

Bargaining isn't going to get you anywhere; the mere fact that you were using another account in violation of this block is block evasion, which definitely counts as "abusing multiple accounts". As noted above, your only option at this point is to email ArbCom, or you *might* have a chance with the "standard offer". Because of your continued submission of unblock requests while still abusing other accounts, I am also revoking your talk page access. Please see the note at the very bottom of the page. —Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2013 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: Much as I'd like to refuse this appeal myself, I'll leave it for another admin, since I've already declined one appeal above. However, I would point out that this user was socking as recently as yesterday, under the account User:Dr Science Geek. I would recommend a lockdown on this talkpage as well, judging from its history. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the removal of relevant talkpage content isn't helpful regarding assessment of unblock requests. Perhaps blocking editing of own talk page should be seriously considered; to continue socking and submit an unblock request against advice given by others could be considered disruptive editing. -- Trevj (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MY REPLY Yes I was Dr Science Geek but It was not abusing multiple accounts I was making constuctive edits. As for my talkpage access I dissagree with revoking it because I am not abusing it. I only want to make constructive edits so please give me a 2nd chance.--The Cosmos Master (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. —Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sonning Common Health Walks

The article Sonning Common Health Walks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:notabiliy, no significant coverage outside of a few local news articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tim Landy (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]