User talk:Liquid foundation
Welcome!
|
Liquid foundation, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Liquid foundation! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liquid foundation, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Federer–Nadal rivalry, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Sockpuppetry and well over 3RR Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This includes at least two sockpuppets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Request for removal of personal attacks[edit]
As per the suggestions on WP:CIV, I am extending an olive branch to you, by politely requesting you remove the comments made on the Federer-Nadal rivalry Talk page, as seen here. [[1]] What you have written is in clear contravention of WP:NPA, and as I have treated you and your opinions with respect, I ask that you do the same by removing the unwarranted (and frankly, untruthful) comments you have made. I hope that we can continue to have a civil discussion on the content of the article, and that one does not need to resort to senseless ad hominem attacks. Thank you. chu_pikachu (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That was not a personal attack. I merely outlined my argument and detailed out why your deletions of critical information were errant...
I am happy to have that entry reviewed by the proper authorities at Wikipedia...
No personal attacks were issued[edit]
You called the fact that Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer on all 3 Slam surfaces in the finals of a major a "piece of trivia"
The fact that you believe that such an incredible part of Rafael's Nadal's success to be trivial shows to me (and I think most other tennis fans) that you don't possess the necessary knowledge in the subject of tennis to be editing the Federer-Nadal wikipedia page.
It's not a personal attack. It's an assertion, and one that I believe to be correct.
Do you believe yourself to be an expert on the subject of professional tennis? If no, then why do you insist on controlling the content of those pages?
June 2015[edit]
Your recent editing history at Federer–Nadal rivalry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Liquid foundation is a sockmaster of Tennisfanism and 184.59.10.138. Multiple editors have tried and failed to revert or tweak his additions to no avail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Do not edit my talk page[edit]
This is a formal request. You and all your clones, leave my talk page alone Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
Liquid foundation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I see no reason why my account should be blocked. I have not used other accounts. There are other accounts in my household, but they are not controlled by me. It seems to me that Wikipedia is more concerned with procedural aspects of controlling the site than the actual content on the site. By this I mean, I am being blocked for adding factual information while others that control the pages (and know the procedural stuff) are able to delete factual information and control the perspective. I strongly encourage you to look at Wolbo and Fyunck(click) as possible sock puppet as well. The Federer-Nadal rivalry has been dominated by Rafael Nadal and these "two" users have controlled the page such that important records between the two and records in history can't even be added to the site. It's very disappointing to fans that know the actual history. Are there multiple people in my household attempting to correct this wrong? Yes. Am I a sock puppet? No. Have I acted maliciously? No. I have merely tried to correct what I see as a willful distortion of information on this particular page. Lastly, I am an expert in this field, and would be happy to submit my credentials. --Liquid foundation (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm declining this for two reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia does not really care whether you're technically a single person operating multiple accounts or whether the other people in your household echo your edits; see WP:MEAT. Secondly, you still don't understand why your edits that originally led to the edit war were problematic. Thus, if you were unblocked, the problems would very likely recur. Huon (talk) 16:12, 4 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.
- Comment - Perhaps LF truly doesn't understand what a sockpuppet is or what "working with others" on wikipedia entails. He should read and re-read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and ask to work with a mentor while he learns the ropes of wikipedia. We do want passionate editors but we want good editors that follow rules. We build our articles by consensus and sources. If something is added to an article that gets reverted YOU DO NOT RE-ADD IT. You bring it to talk and "civilly" state your case. Others will chime in on better wording, full support or a big fat no. You have to learn to respect your peers opinions also, and if there are more that disagree with you, you have to move on.
- I tried to warn you about sock-puppetry before I brought it to an administrators attention. I said "Many things are frowned upon at wikipedia but being a sockpuppet is like a deer cornered by a pack of wolves. It gets really messy really fast. Don't do it." If you didn't understand "sockpuppet" you had ample time to look it up. You kept it up and you kept reverting at least three other editors, passing and re-passing WP:3RR several times. You really left us no choice but to make a report and I told you I did so. I also told you what would likely happen. I did what I could to discourage you from following the course you chose. If you promise to never ever use another account and to sign in every single time, that might help. If you promise to first bring everything to talk at Federer–Nadal rivalry or other Nadal/Federer articles, and work with others on ways to word things, and accept consensus if things don't go your way... that would also really help. This is only advice from a non-administrator, but I hate seeing anyone blocked even when I'm involved. If there's anything that can be done to turn you into a productive member of the wikipedia community, I'm for it. But if all we can expect is more of the same edit warring and sock usage then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Liquid foundation, the next time you re-add information about your content dispute, I will revoke access to this page. You have an outstanding unblock request. If you have anything more to say about the block itself and the sock puppetry, fine, but this page is not intended to be used to continue the battle you were engaged in before you were blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)