User talk:Ygglow

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Roqui15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Cabayi (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not the sockpuppet of Roqui15, I don't even know where you could even begin to try to disprove that, to me it sounds like you just wanted to block my contribution, apparently to you, there can only be one person that could care about that particular subject? I have done a contribution already on the same page, in 19 September 2019 and 3 October 2019, which you can clearly see, in the meantime that user also posted posted on that talk page, the reason why you might think there might be sockpuppets is actually because there was a video made about this subject "list of largest empires" and alot of people were weirded out by the fact that the portuguese empire was behind the brazilian empire, the author of the video credited this wiki page and that's why you have alot of disgruntled people discussing it now.Ygglow (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It sounds like you're saying that multiple people were recruited off-site to come here and advocate for a specific edit to be made. This is considered meat puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2020 (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.

What? So an user cannot dispute the validity of a wikipage if he came from a specific location? I got no ill intent, I HAVE disputed the information in the page with sources which you can see here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_empires&oldid=965544254 in the Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020 and instead of having a mod/admin/etc check the validity of my information they block me? I seriously do not understand.

For the sake of discussion,

if we could persuade the blocking and reviewing admins to even consider unblocking you, would you agree to be unblocked except for Talk:List of largest empires and List of largest empires with a WP:topic ban on pages related to Portugal and Brazil? What constructive edits would you make? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X-----------------------------------------

Ygglow:

How would that even begin to make sense? First of all you cannot even make edits on that page anymore if you don't ask for one in the talk page. I have already made a thread about it there where I have presented solid evidence enough to disrupt the narrative that is presented on the page right now, I was erroneously blocked for sockpuppetry and it does seem like I was only blocked so that the page can be peacefully monopolized by the user TompaDompa (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:TompaDompa&action=edit&redlink=1) . His edit in 07:10, 9 April 2018 which you can see here :https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_largest_empires&oldid=835530392 has been sustained by an erroneous source (https://escholarship.org/content/qt3cn68807/qt3cn68807.pdf) at least, in the subject of the portuguese empire's area, on that pdf file you can see that the author makes no scientific research on the portuguese matter and even adds "?" in front of the area size of the countries.

This, is where he should have gone to for information, he should have gone for this articles 1 , 2

This works are in portuguese but you should be able to understand them with a translator, they effectively prove my point:

História do Brasil nos Velhos Mapas. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Rio Branco, 1965.

Imagens da formação territorial brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Odebrecht, 1993. Mapas históricos brasileiros (Col. Grandes Personagens da Nossa História). São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1970.

CALMON, Pedro. História diplomática do Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Livraria Editora P. Bluhm, 1941.

CARVALHO, Carlos de. História diplomática do Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1959.

CORTESÃO, Jaime Zuzuarte. Raposo Tavares e a formação territorial do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1958.

DIAS, Demosthenes de Oliveira. Formação territorial do Brasil: origem e evolução. Rio de Janeiro: Na Loja Carlos Ribeiro, 1956.

DIX, Arthur. Geografía política. Barcelona: Editorial Labor, 1943.

MORAES, Antonio Carlos Robert. Bases da formação territorial do Brasil: o território colonial brasileiro no longo século XVI. São Paulo, 1991. Tese (Doutorado) de Geografía.

OLIVEIRA, Roberto Monteiro de. A última página do Gênesis: a formação territorial do Estado brasileiro na Amazônia oriental (o caso do Amapá). São Paulo, 1998. Tese (Doutorado) de Geografía.

QUESEDA, Vicente G. Historia diplomática Latino-América III: la política imperialista del Brasil y las cuestiones des limites de las repúblicas sudamericanas. Buenos Aires: Casa Vacaro, 1920.

RATZEL, Friedrich. Geografía. São Paulo: Ática, 1990. Grandes Cientistas Sociais, Vol. 59

ROGRIGUES, José Honório. Uma história diplomática do Brasil: 1531-1945. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1995.

SOUZA, Augusto Fausto de. Estudo sobre a divisão territorial do Brasil. Brasília: Fundação Projeto Rondon, 1988.

VIANA, Hélio. História da República e História diplomática do Brasil. São Paulo: Melhoramentos, 1957.

I'll take the forgoing to mean you have no other interest in editing Wikipedia on any other subject, but merely wish to continue on the previous course. Thanks. It's what I needed to know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The only thing I got to know from this exchange was that you have been of no help to me, how does that even make sense? How does me having or not interest in other subjects block me from participating in this one?

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for supposedly being a sockpuppet for another user called Roqui15 which is not the truth.I request to be unblocked.Ygglow (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You indicated in your first unblock request that you were indeed a sockpuppet. " the reason why you might think there might be sockpuppets is actually because there was a video made about this subject "list of largest empires" and alot of people were weirded out by the fact that the portuguese empire was behind the brazilian empire, the author of the video credited this wiki page" You've also indicated you have no interest in editing other than to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in that specific subject area. There are no grounds here to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2020 (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.

Where did I mention that I came from that video in particular? I have contributions that precede that user, or some other user, one that goes as far back as 19th September of 2019, the video in question is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV1fOTHoBvc which was made in 9th June of 2020

Unblock discussion

Willing to consider unblock with WP:TBAN on Talk:List of largest empires/List of largest empires, if this is acceptable to the blocking admin and NRP. Though I'm not sure appellant would agree. (In my Joachim Steuben voice) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Response:

There is no justifiable reason for you to do so.I was blocked for being a suspected sockpuppet, which I am not, if that is proven then there is no need for a Topic Ban since I was just making contributions that were respecting all the wikipedia policies - Ygglow

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I'd like to be unblocked on the subject of being a sockpuppet for the user Roqui15, which is untrue. Have done multiple contributions to that talk page from September 2019 to this month and got blocked after my latest contribution in 1st of July.I have already mentioned that I have nothing to do with whatever other users contribute on the talk page even if they are from my country. minor edit- It seems that those contributions on the subject of the portuguese empire by all users have been removed Ygglow (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

On TonyBallioni's assessment. Boa sorte. Cabayi (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, I talked to a pt.wiki CU about the data, I don’t think this is the same person. Same country and common UA, but different geographic region and ISP, and the geolocation can apparently be trusted. Less common country than we normally see on en.wiki, so I’d probably have gone with AmandaNP’s posilikely at first too, but I don’t think these are the same people after talking with people on other projects who are more familiar with the data. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]