Mastermuttsir

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sockpuppetry, as you did at Aaron Kosminski. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, if you alter the Aaron Kosminski article again in any way to remove the fact that he was Jewish, I'll block you indefinitely. There are plenty of sources which state he was and it is sourced in the article. Go to Google books to confirm this. You have been socking and edit warring disruptively and you won't be allowed to continue.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well aren't you charming? try checking my IP address I'm not this other person you hate so much.

unblocking

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't been "socking" whatever that is and my last edit was a request for a citation showing that he was religiously Jewish and not the other concepts of it which I was nice enough to list for others FTR this was an edit I've never done before. PS no need to threaten others.Mastermuttsir (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Over and above the socking issue (which you offer no credible disproof of, in any event), you come across as insufficiently civil, with edit summaries like "Yeah and I'm Bigfoot." — Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 19 September 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.

1) It was a joke and made at no ones expense 2) how exactly do you expect me to prove I'm not this other person other than to repeat for you that we don't have the same IP address or editing style??? --Mastermuttsir (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK to find out what socking is. @Berean Hunter: blocked you because he felt that you had been using 108.214.147.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to remove evidence that Kosminski was Jewish for the article, and I agree. It wasn't about whether or not you've done an edit before--that would be a WP:3RR violation. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 12:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's not a threat, it's just that he would have good reason to because you'd be editing disruptively. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Berean has no grounds to block me if he has no evidence that I've ever used that IP and if he had ever bothered to check our styles he'd see for himself that we are not anything like each other. What's more Jewish can refer to a culture, ethnic group or a religion and so far I've seen zero evidence the killer was religious. FTR yes Hunter did make a needless threat.

unblocking

{{unblock}}

FWIW, I ran a checkuser, and the underlying IP and 108.214.147.28 don't geolocate to the same location. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's worth a lot to me Phil. Any chance you could get someone else to unblock me? Mastermuttsir (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were unblocked, what edits would you make? PhilKnight (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd likely return the citation request since so far all the references to aarons Jewishness I've seen are referring to either his ethnicity or culture. Why? --Mastermuttsir (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little concerned that if you were unblocked, you'd get blocked again almost immediately for edit warring over Aaron's Jewishness. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

: Thanks for your concern (really) but I've only put in a request for a citation once. --Mastermuttsir (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that you discuss your desired edits on the talk page and look for consensus. Unilaterally deciding upon yourself to remove any aspect of his being a Jew will get you blocked again. You and the IP are editing alike. It could be meatpuppetry but I also note that the IP is running Tomato VPN with an open tcp port...so, yes, it could be you. I blocked based on behavior...socking was the call but edit warring would have been just as valid.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Winooski project

Hello, and thanks for creating the article The Winooski project. It was interesting and I have expanded it some. I do have a problem with the claim in the first sentence that it was "said to have been one of the largest Civilian Conservation Corps construction projects in America." That's a rather grand claim and it needs evidence. You cited the article from the journal Vermont History as evidence. I didn't see the information in that article, but the article is long and I didn't read it carefully. Could you point me to where it says that about "one of the largest projects" - like a page number? Thanks! --Melanie

Another question: you changed the number of statewide deaths caused by the 1927 flooding to 120 people. You cited that figure to Chapter 10 of the CCC history, but I didn't see it there. The journal article on page 161 says "Rivers throughout the state overflowed, resulting in eighty-four deaths, fifty-five of them in the relatively compact area of the watershed of the Winooski River." That seems pretty clear. How shall we resolve this? --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Your recent editing history at Ayn Rand 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I took your advise and moved the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermuttsir (talk • contribs)

In that case thank you. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Ayn Rand. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Specifically, your edit simply added a link and was not helpful. I have reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Atlas Shrugged does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emmett Till. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the Till article gross

I'm just trying to make it more readable. --Mastermuttsir (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)