Machinegunetiq
Have you visited the tutorial?
SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did! Thank you so much for the heads up! Machinegunetiq (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! edit
|
June 2012 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article George Orwell, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Numbers in red or green edit
The size of every version of a page is compared to the previous version. If the article has grown you'll see a positive number in green, the amount of bytes the length of the article increased. If you delete content from the article it will be a negative number in red. Arcandam (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Machinegunetiq! I understand how that could be confusing too. If you go to the "History" tab at the top of the page, the numbers in red and green show the number of "bytes" (letters/other characters) added or removed to the article. Red means that characters were removed, green means characters were added. Hope this helps!
Keilana|Parlez ici 16:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jim Goad. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sarah (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The edits from Jim Goad's page were accurate and in context. What was removed was critical analysis of his writing and being described as being an uncredited genre of writing. --Machinegunetiq (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jim Goad. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sarah (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please show me where I added commentary to the Jim Goad article that was personal analysis??? I would like to know what edits I have made that violate Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you.--Machinegunetiq (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Editing to disparage? edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alison ❤ 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Sarah (talk) You recommended Alison to block me for violating WIkipedia policy but how so??? Every edit I have made were within Wikipedia guidelines. If you look at my entries they are all pretty objective. I have reviewed guidelines and will follow them accordingly. I would appreciate it if I am given fair time and warning whether or not my edits were "bad" and get blocked. Should I go up to some committee about this or not? I don't really want to but I would like to know what changes I made as an user that violated Wikipedia policy. How did I violate policy???--Machinegunetiq (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- It goes something like this; you've created multiple accounts here in order to disparage a BLP subject. You've inserted non-public personal information (phone numbers, in this case) into certain articles. You've been involved in an off-wiki campaign against a BLP subject, and complaints have been made (ticket:2012050710009831). Feel free to post an unblock request, per the above instructions, but I'm recommending that you are not unblocked at this time, per checkuser - Alison ❤ 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Previous comment here - Alison ❤ 20:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just to repeat I only inserted a phone number for ONE single BLP subject and no one else and just for one article. Not multiple articles stated above or for multiple subjects. Once I understood the Wikipedia format and guidelines I stopped doing it.--Machinegunetiq (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just to make one more point, I only made one other account (the first being mgunetiquette) and it was obvious it was the same user by the similar login names. I got a new login because I no longer used the email. I only inserted a single phone number for a BLP subject. Ever since I have been informed I can't do that I ceased doing it I also did not make another account as a "sock puppet" because it was obvious I am the same user. Again, the simple allegation that I was making "disparaging" edits are NOT true whatsoever. If you look at the history of my edits none of my edits were "disparaging" in any context. This includes the BLP in question.--Machinegunetiq (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well I only inserted contact information in one article and then I was informed I cannot do that and got blocked. Now I know I can't do that and I have been pretty good with following policy otherwise since my IP was unblocked. I only made a new account simply because I wanted to use an email account I use more often. Ever since I have been on this account I have followed Wikipedia guidelines. --Machinegunetiq (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Enough already. Either post an unblock message per the above directions, or don't, but you don't get to crapflood my inbox. Please also explain this while you're at it. Seriously - you don't get to edit people's BLPs to stalk and harass them IRL. No way - Alison ❤ 00:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The feud can be explained here. By the way, user: NateTheHun is employed by Gavin McInnes and works for Jim Goad. I believe that is against policy for him to edit their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.59.48 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- How exactly is editing someone's article "stalking and harassing" especially when I don't make edits disparaging them in anyway? As for the article, the person in question is making false allegations I would gladly counter with emails and messages I sent in CONTEXT. Yes, even though I don't like the person in question, I never abused Wikipedia to defame the BLP subject besides adding in a contact phone number that I will NO LONGER post in the future or with any other living person. It should be noted however the living person in question decided to post my own contact phone number on his website. I don't intend to use Wikipedia to make malicious statements or make false allegations about any subject including Gavin McInnes or Jim Goad. In fact, I have only bothered those two to remove false allegations and my own contact information off their websites which they refuse to do. Of course what they would like to do on their websites is their own business. And I should be given the respect I have as an editor to edit Wikipedia as long as I don't violate policy and commit abuses and bring up my personal business with Gavin McInnes or Jim Goad or whomever on the internet outside of Wikipedia. I'm not gonna bring that here in Wikipedia since I just like being a Wikipedia editor anyway and I like to edit pages for a ton of other things besides those two people in general so I would not like to be blocked if that is fine with you. And I'm a stickler for accuracy.--Machinegunetiq (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I don't want to post emails all over the place just to explain this long winded personal grudge I have between Jim Goad, Gavin McInnes, and myself. They are making allegations on Street Carnage that are false and they are posting statements I made out of context to defame me. Bottom line is, my only personal grievance I have with those two is the fact I want them to remove my personal contact information from the website and my likeness from their website. I don't want anymore personal contact with those people ever again otherwise. I have also gotten a number of prank calls from their friends over this issue. I'm not stalking anyone. I just want to be bothered and my personal information out on the internet. --Machinegunetiq (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just to make another note. I do not want to be unblocked for the "mgunetiquette" account. I want to be unblocked for THIS account.
Machinegunetiq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I enjoy editing Wikipedia articles for a myriad of different subjects and articles. As an unblock condition or "probation" I will do my best not to bring my personal businesses or biases on any particular subject on Wikipedia. I should be given the respect I have as an editor to edit Wikipedia as long as I don't violate policy and commit abuses and bring up my personal business with Gavin McInnes or Jim Goad or whomever on the internet outside of Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
Given you just posted a number of disparaging comments immediately above, I'm finding that somewhat hard to believe. Wikipedia is not a battleground you can use to compel people to do something - if you have issues with something someone's posted about you on their site, deal with them directly. Leave Wikipedia out of it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I only made those statements immediately above to explain myself and that give situation to user Alison and anyone else reading this. I will leave the monkey business out of Wikipedia's article pages. I just don't like being accused of bad things I didn't do.--Machinegunetiq (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (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.
Machinegunetiq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request that I be unblocked as this account is considered a sock puppet. I would like to be unblocked on THIS account instead of the last account I made. I have been consistently making good, accurate, citable, contributions to Wikipedia and enjoy editing articles to be more clear and accurate for the readers. I know I have some personal grievances with two living subjects I have edited for but all the edits I made on their articles were within Wikipedia guidelines and none of the edits were "disparaging" as people have claimed. I haven't vandalized a single article or inserted a single phone number or any of that nonsense once I started editing on this account. Just to make another note I understand this is my second unblock request as shown above. The admin above says "leave Wikipedia" out of it about personal vendettas. I understand that and I'm pretty sure I have done a pretty good job at leaving my personal business at the door when editing articles. If you actually look at all the revisions I have made line by line you will know I don't make crap up nor do I distort citations to make someone look better or worse than they already are. Machinegunetiq (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you continued to use your talk page as a vehicle to attack and disparage named people, I'm both declining your unblock and revoking your access to edit this page. You may direct any further appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:28, 20 June 2012 (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.