User talk:Yenserbull2

February 2024

Hello, I'm Editorofthewiki. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to William John Storey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William John Storey Yenserbull2 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Yenserbull2 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belbury. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to William John Storey seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sources were not correct indeed on William John Storey. However, you also undid my legitimate edits on Greg Weeks (whose page you’ve now deleted) and Red Horse Racing. Both of such edits were verified externally and non-objective. Yenserbull2 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at William John Storey, you may be blocked from editing. Belbury (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit and included a 2022 source for my edit. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am still getting in the hang of this editing business and sourcing properly. Yenserbull2 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just find a source that matches the thing that you're writing. I've found and added a clear source for Storey's 2021 failure.

If you want to write that Storey's announced plan for 2022 also failed, cite a source that mentions that plan failing, don't cite a source that's just about the announcement.

If you want to write that there's a "popular belief" that a particular hair studio was affiliated with a racing team, cite a source that mentions such a belief, don't just cite the studio's website front page.

Wikipedia also doesn't use Twitter as a source for biographies, per WP:TWEET. Belbury (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback Yenserbull2 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=Your reason here Yenserbull2 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

I had been having a dialogue with Belbury about what is and is not appropriate to add/edit on Wikipedia pages. From that point forward, I adjusted and was no longer adding "unsourced" content. As I told him, it was my mistake and in fact I had undone my own edits on occasion in the past as well. I notably did not go back and undo edits from that point forward.

To add to that, "Yenserbull" has been inactive for years, per his page. Yenserbull2 was used as the name was taken. That does not imply I am a sockpuppet.

Yenserbull3 is in fact me as I made a backup account in case something like this happened - I am not denying that. Yenserbull2 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Yenserbull per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yenserbull. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both -- Drmies and jpgordon -- for further clarification. I do want to address something I stated/didn't make clear: "To add to that, "Yenserbull" has been inactive for years, per his page. Yenserbull2 was used as the name was taken. That does not imply I am a sockpuppet."

I guess I was unclear on what "sockpuppet" meant. The account was inactive for years and banned so I made (or would have used the same name if it was available). I was under the impression it meant spam-creating accounts for the purposes of massive vandalism, which obviously was not the case (hence the emphasis on inactivity for years). Because that would indeed be a crappy thing. None of the edits on Greg Weeks this past week should have been seen as vandalism, though I get why the page would be redirected to Espers considering there isn't much content there without the stuff I added (which, in hindsight, wasn't really necessary, I just thought I was adding context).

Having said that, as for me not knowing "what Wikipedia is and how it works is really disconcerting", I had been receiving feedback from another editor, Belbury, regarding this very topic. And I had been adhering to it/in contact with him throughout. I was not trying to show anybody up -- I totally understand now how the unsourced content/primary sourced -- and in some cases non-subjective -- content could be misconstrued as inaccurate/irrelevant, even if not necessarily intended as such. That was 100% on me, and I should not have edited anything without having shown a more extensive knowledge of the process.

What is somewhat disconcerting to me is that I received a "Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at William John Storey, you may be blocked from editing." -- I got a warning, responded to it, and got banned anyway (without any further edits). I was willing to admit I was in the wrong on this one (as I both inserted subjective content AND didn't source from the right year, as his feedback stated) and still got banned.

But at the end of the day, I respect your decision to be proactive/prevent further edits that could have been deemed destructive. Just want the full scope of the situation to be known. I accept the ban. Take care. Yenserbull2 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2024 (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).

Yenserbull2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had been having a dialogue with Belbury about what is and is not appropriate to add/edit on Wikipedia pages. From that point forward, I adjusted and was no longer adding "unsourced" content. As I told him, it was my mistake and in fact I had undone my own edits on occasion in the past as well. I notably did not go back and undo edits from that point forward.

To add to that, "Yenserbull" has been inactive for years, per his page. Yenserbull2 was used as the name was taken. That does not imply I am a sockpuppet.

Yenserbull3 is in fact me as I made a backup account in case something like this happened - I am not denying that.

Having said all this, I respect your decision. Yenserbull2 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that User:Yenserbull's penultimate edit was on Greg Weeks, and that this account's first edit was to Greg Weeks, your claiming no relationship is entirely untenable. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:00, 5 February 2024 (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.

The socking is one thing--a really crappy thing--but your lack of knowledge about what Wikipedia is and how it works is really disconcerting. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]