A delicious pot pie

Hi, I noticed you are a new editor and have created two new pages, Wikipedia_france and River_Yeo_(tributary_of_the_Creedy). Wikipdia already has an article on France I segjust you edit it instead of trying to create your own. River Yeo is probably not notable enough to have an article of it's own, but you might look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers and see what you can learn there. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How do I make an article notable? I added a picture to the article. Sorry about the first article. It was a test.

You are not trying to make the article notable you are trying to prove the notability of the subject. Said another way, why should I(or anyone but you) care about the River Yeo? Generally I go to the two wikipedia policies WP:NOTABLE and WP:SECONDARY, but these are full of wikipdia specific terminology that might be difficult for a new editor.

I strongly reccomend that your first actions on wikipedia be trying to improve another article, not creating one, but if you insist on that path Wikipedia:Your_first_article is a resonable guide.

When talking on a talk page like this one please WP:sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A delicious pot pie (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) But that makes my question how it is less notable than articles such as Wanagemeswah

It is probably more notable than Wanagemeswah, but just because it is wrong somewhere else on wikipedia, dosn't make it right. Is the river yeo you created an article about any of these rivers River_Yeo?

In River_Yeo,_Somerset the fourth refrence (from the gaurdian) is resonable WP:THIRDPARTY source, can you find something simular for your article?CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for general disruption? User:Atama, you are retarded. I'm sorry, but there's no other way you would have concluded that after reading the discourse otherwise.

May 2014

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).

A delicious pot pie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:Anthony Bradbury said that I only needed a new username to contribute to the encyclopedia because my first two were references to Willy on Wheels. All of my edits have been very constructive. For what reason can you say I am not here to contribute?--A delicious pot pie (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Time wasting trollery in its purest form. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:00, 11 May 2014 (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.

And you lot fucking wonder why I claim you are biased against me. I'd appreciate it if someone a little more thoughtful would review this. Even Bush and Acorterion, as much as they are against me, provided actual reason and discourse. You sound like you didn't read a damn thing on this talk page. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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).

A delicious pot pie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd appreciate it if someone at least pretended to read the discourse downward before reviewing this. All I want is to be given one chance to contribute, which I haven't been given at all. The moment I make a single edit of vandalism, I'll more than happily accept my block. I remind you that across the three accounts, none of my edits have been vandalism. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) :Please read my responses and WP:ROPE proposal. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've looked over the proposal below (yes, all of it). And I've looked over all of your contributions (which didn't take long, there aren't many considering how recently-created your accounts are). Your first account was made in violation of WP:IMPERSONATOR, despite your claims that it didn't violate our username policy (it did). You also clearly knew who Willy was (having knowledge of SPI demonstrated in your very first edit) so it was intentionally provocative. Your claim that you were softblocked and asked to change your username is false, you were quite clearly hard-blocked as evident in your block log. You created a second account to disrupt an SPI, which was also in violation of policy as the first was. This account, your third one, has made some positive contributions (most of them very minor with a few of some substance) but you also made this edit which was an extremely poor violation of WP:NPOV. Your repeated misrepresentation of your actions and the actions of others and your insistence that you haven't done anything wrong deters me from unblocking you. -- Atama頭 19:04, 12 May 2014 (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.

ou created a second account to disrupt an SPI, which was also in violation of policy as the first was

No, I didn't. I wouldn't expect you to be able to put two and two together, but here's how it went:

On the second account, I made several constructive edits along the likes I've made on this account.

They were all deleted and the sockpuppet notice was posted on my talk page. Since the fucking notice itself says "please comment on this matter if you are indeed sockpuppeting," I left a comment there saying fully owning up to it. Stop revising situations to make them fit your bias. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:You also clearly knew who Willy was ( Holy shit. How many times do I have to say that myself?! That's not being contended and it never has been. Clearly, you didn't read the conversation, because if you did, you wouldn't have made that pointless garbage. I KNOW WHO WILLY IS. I didn't know that referencing him in my username would immediately shitlist me. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what Anthony said [1], Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's recount here. I was blocked initially for "not being here to contribute." Anthony admitted that this was mere prejudice against my username. That's the real reason I'm blocked. I've never made a single vandalous edit to the encyclopedia. I've only contributed in earnest. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anthony admitted that this was mere prejudice against my username - No, he did not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he did. we ARE prejudiced against any editor who resurrects, or appears to resurrect, the most notorious vandalizing sockmaster in our history --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Which does not = "prejudice is the reason I am blocked". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It meant that my username was the reason I was blocked. That's what I was getting at. Sorry if I was unclear in wording. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Reasons to unblock A delicious pot pie

"As you well know, there's too much history of vandalism with "Willy on Wheels" usernames for us to allow them. If you want to be a constructive contributor, sign up with a username that is not intentionally provocative (like this one) and actually be constructive rather than picking fights." That was the original declined unblock reason. All of this user's edits have been to contribute to the encyclopedia, none of them have been vandalism. To be honest, I think this user deserves a second chance, he created a username copying a notorious vandal, not knowing what it entailed, and proceeded to make edits that weren't vandalism. He overreacted, making a general comment on other users who've reverted him, not naming any of him. He didn't know any of the policies at the time, and being told to "create a new account", A delicious pot pie created one. You should give him some WP:ROPE and watch his contributions. If he is truly Willy on wheels, why is he defending himself from your accusations? He'd just create another sock puppet. But this person is trying to make a sincere contribution to the encyclopedia, and every edit he's made under this account has been constructive, he has not picked a single fight whatsoever, and the only possible conflict he's had with another editor is him reverting the warnings that Katieh5584 made on his talk page, which is perfectly allowed, and he was just sticking his head in the sand to ignore the issue, thinking that if he edited constructively, everything would be forgiven. Katieh5584 has repeatedly reverted A delicious pot pie's edits to his own user talk page, after having been warned repeatedly about not doing that. A delicious pot pie made a rash comment that didn't follow Wikipedia:Civility, but why should he be blocked for that? Considering that he was civil in interactions with every other editor he's communicated with, and Katieh was warned 3 times about not being allowed to revert edits made to A delicious pot pie's own talk page.

Let's go over your points for blocking him, and my points, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think he should be blocked as a:

1. Sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels
2. Sockpuppet of an impersonator of Willy on Wheels
3. Person making rude comments towards other editors
4. Person who was evading a block or ban

That sounds about right, feel free to tell me if there's any other points I missed on your end, let's review my points now.

1. This person should be unblocked, as he was a noob and didn't know what naming his account Willy on Wheels fully entailed, thinking it as a joke username.
2. He was told to create another account without the Willy on Wheels username.
3. He has made only constructive edits
4. He has mostly been civil in his interactions
5. His uncivil communications were limited to being mad about being blocked about creating another username, as being asked to do, and making a rude comment towards another editor who repeatedly violated 3RR and edit warred with him on his own talk page, the editor being warned 3 times about not being allowed to do that, getting rid of 2 of the warnings, implicitly acknowledging them, and then proceeded to edit war, even after another editor warned the editor.

Now, let me refute why each of your points aren't reasonable.

1. "Sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels" Not true, as he behaviour doesn't correspond with Willy on Wheel's behaviour, consisting mostly of subtle violations of policy, mistakes that could easily have been made by an inexperienced editor, and Willy's tactics are to full out vandalize as many articles as possible before being blocked.
2. "Sockpuppet of an impersonator of Willy on Wheels". Yes, he is another account of the same user, but the person who blocked him explicity told him to create another account, and if I was told by an administrator that doing something was OK, then I would assume I am allowed to do it.
3. "Person making rude comments towards other editors" He has gotten angry at some points, but mostly to the level of a good faith editor who doesn't understand why his edits have been reverted. As you can see for my point about his uncivil communications, they were limited to rude comments that didn't nearly escalate to the level of a violent rant.
4. "Person who was evading a block or ban". This user was never formally banned at all, and his "block" consists of a message telling him to create another account, as changing a new account's username is an undue burden when you can easily make another. He wasn't evading at all, he was told to create another account

I now ask you to tell me why he is wrong in the situation, as you can easily give him some WP:ROPE and unblock him, and if he vandalizes an article, you can block him. In fact, I'd be happy to help him with learning how to edit the encyclopedia, and to answer any questions he may have. 123chess456 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Point one: He was fully aware of Willy's reputation and chose his username accordingly. Point three, at least 75% of his edits have been nonconstructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me first say that Chess, you are amazing. You put great time and effort into forming a better case for me than I could ever hope to do myself. Whether or not I get unblocked, I never forget such acts of selflessness. I couldn't be more grateful toward you. If you aren't an administrator already, you seriously deserve consideration.

Now, please let me respond to Mr. Bushranger. Sir, if "75%" of my edits have been "nonconstructive," that's probably because 75% of them were reverting my own talk page when your friend started an edit war here. Second, I said I knew of Mr. on Wheels, not that I knew of him and "chose my name accordingly." I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I said with complete sincerity that chess worded it better than I ever could have: I found Mr. on Wheels' reputation funny. That is the only reason I chose the username. Countless edits later, and I haven't made a single vandalous edit. You need to let your personal predisposition toward me go. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain what edits you refer to are non-constructive? 123chess456 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the very edit you linked to, Mr. Bush, I said "you should let my edits speak for themselves." I don't know how you interpret that as "I deliberately chose my username to indicate that I intend to vandalize." Throughout my defenses, I've used the word "prejudice" often, and this is an example of why.

I sincerely love what the wikipedia project is about, and I loved being able to use my knowledge to add constructive articles to Stubs on the few times I've been actually allowed to edit. I want to contribute to this encyclopedia, and everything except my first username chosen indicates that. However, you and everyone besides Mr. Chess deems that username choice far more important than my actual contributions. That infuriates me beyond end.

Finally, let me add that if unblocked, I want this to be my account. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "noob", this is someone who consciously chose a username associated with one of the biggest time-wasters we've had to put up with. Willy, the master of Wheels (talk · contribs) was created at 18:36 on 4 May and blocked on account of the username the same day at 18:53. The unblock requests for this account are at best disingenuous. Before the block this tag [2] was posted, an odd action for a truly new user. Evading that block, Willy, creator of all Wheels (talk · contribs) was created on 7 May at 15:44 and blocked (again) at 16:11, having posted more nonsense like this [3] at the SPI. Then, evading two previous blocks, the present account was created at 19:08 on 9 May, with no good-faith acknowledgement of the previous acounts. Whether or not the use of this account is appropriate, good-hand/bad hand accounts are not acceptable. Serial block evasion, conscious trolling via username and good hand/bad hand accounts are all excellent reasons for blocking and staying blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

having posted more nonsense like this [3] at the SPI Nonsense? Really? Could you be more biased against me? That edit isn't nonsense at all. Jesus Christ. And how many times do we have to go over me knowing about Willy on Wheels beforehand? Why don't you reply to what I said instead of ignoring it because it defeats your point? I've only ever "lurked" on Wikipedia before making my first account. That's how I knew of Mr. on Wheels. But I had no reason to believe that a username I merely thought was humorous would incur the wrath of people like you. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Regarding the first edit, that was merely a product of my prolonged lurking. I've spent a while looking at special pages and some templates. That's all. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith when you called my comment on the SPI nonsense here. I was referring to the edits on that account when I said my edits reflect a desire to contribute. I don't know how many of my mainspace edits you deleted, but they were all constructive additions to pre-existing articles, and one was definitely my first attempt at creating the River Yeo article. Again, deleted from history. Also, none of the three accounts have been "bad hand." My first account was blocked before I could do much of anything. The second and third all had completely benign mainspace edits. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Literally the only reason you said that holds weight is my serial block evasion, which I have directly responded to (much to you ignoring it) several times. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And, let's see, the edit filter was tripped for fixed position vandalism with a rejected edit from the first account "Marianne Kierkemann has been vandalized by Blue Ninjakooopa", using the PAGENAME parameter. Care to explain that? Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I know how to use div. That was a test, and I had every intention of reverting it if it went though. It did not, did it? You talk about one mainspace edit that never even went through with all the weight in the world while pretending the hours I spent in the last day alone constructively contributing never happened. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a noob to editing to Wikipedia, as well as its policy. Not to code, or to perusing special pages, templates, history, and the like. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

First, I was referring to 75% of your articlespace edits, I assumed that went without saying. Secondly, "my friend" did not do any sort of edit warring - I do not know the person who edit-warred, so please do not imply that I am somehow connected to them. Thirdly, if you "knew of [Willy]", then you did, in fact, choose your name because of that. And if you knew of him, you knew that he is Wikipedia's most notorious troll. AGF is not a suicide pact; it is simply not plausible that you connected "Willy on Wheels" + "Wikipedia" and did not get "supertroll". I do not have a personal predisposition against you, so please do not make such accusations. The fact of the matter is that any account that is named after Willy is disruptive by the very fact of its being named after Willy, and the fact that when you were blocked you created a second account to evade the block that was also named after him is a major strike against you. And, as noted above, some of your very first edits were adding sock tags to articles - it is unlikely in the extreme that a brand new user would immediately start doing that upon joining - if you had, in fact, been "prolonged lurking" it makes your likelyhood of knowing of Willy without knowing his reputation even more implausible. I'm sorry, but the story simply isn't adding up here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is about the third time I've had to make this exact comment, but I never said that I didn't know of Willy's reputation. I've said repeated times, however, that my username was out of innocuous humor, not that I wanted to indicate that I was a "supertroll" or on a "suicide pact" or anything of the sort. Why do you think I was incredulous at the block? I didn't know that there was a policy wherein anyone who referenced him in name would immediately get the hammer upon them. That's why I said I was a neophyte when it came to Wikipedia policy, but not when it came to physically editing on a Wiki.

And what is articlespace? Again, if you're referring to real articles and not userspace nonsense, then saying that "75% of my article edits are nonconstructive" is complete nonsense. I more than invite you to take a look at my edits that haven't been deleted from history. The ones that actually happened, especially. (Acroterion) --A delicious pot pie (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Articlespace" is, indeed, where the articles are. Your edits here do show some improvement in the constructive ratio, so I apologize for that. But I still, to be quite honest, find it hard to comprehend that anyone could possibly know of Willy and his reputation and think that patterning not one but two accounts after his infamous username was "innocuous humor". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Give him some WP:ROPE, if he's going to vandalize again, just block him. It's incredibly simple, and if he vandalizes and gets blocked again, I won't defend him any more. 123chess456 (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Having made a determination at one of your account pages I shall not make another. But I would point out that my recommendation was to apply for a username-unblock at the page of your first account, not to create another account while blocked at your other two. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, I want this to be my primary account. I don't want either Willy account to be unblocked. I would greatly like it and accept in a heartbeat the proposal that if you give me one chance such that the moment I make a single vandalous edit you can block me indefinitely. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I just want to point out that users have been unblocked when they had far worse track records than I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dogmaticeclectic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davebrayfb

Both of those users are currently indefinitely-blocked, the latter because he violated terms he agreed to so he could be unblocked. Care to mulligan? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

They've both been unblocked in the past. They were given second chances. They're seeking third chances. I'd like a first chance. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I know you're a troll, the funny part of this is that I've managed to get a VOA unblocked once and you're getting all this bureaucracy thrown at your face over a username vio. Had you just been WP:ROPE unblocked instead of all this, it would have caused less disruption and waste of admins' time, i.e. you are a successful troll..

I'm not trolling. I would really appreciate it if you would stop insulting me and actually look at my Articlespace contributions before calling me names. However, you do make the point that I'm trying to make: if I'm given some ROPE- in other words, one chance, and I would get blocked at the first sign of vandalism permanently-, this would be the perfect solution for everyone involved. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're calling somebody a troll, you should look what happened and read the debate. How is he a successful troll? I supported him in the rope unblock (I started the debate). One of the first things I asked for is rope. I gave many reasons, but I stayed consistent, asking for rope. Not one person has refuted why giving him rope is bad. The only way your comment would make sense is if you were calling the admins trolls. You've made the most compelling argument, that we're wasting huge amounts of time, and unlocking him and letting him vandalize Wikipedia would save lots of time. Why are we so opposed? Unblock him, if he vandalizes, there is a consensus that he should be blocked. Right now, he's blocked on the original accounts for a username violation. Nobody has put up a single coherent argument for not giving him rope. Please unblock this user. 123chess456 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this user should be unblocked. The Newspaper (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fill me in?

I helped this user in in friday when he had something like 10 edits, he seems like he knew somethings better than a new user usually does but there was nothing wrong with his behaviour. I come in today and find him blocked but I don't really understand why nothing I see in his history seems like vandalsim. Can someone explain it to me? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I hope that in 6 months, you can take the standard offer. Good luck! Novato 123chess456 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)