User talk:ColinSheffer

Hello, ColinSheffer, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

ColinSheffer, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ColinSheffer! 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 experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. Regarding your edits to Henrik Palmgren, Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, and interpreting WP:PRIMARY sources is a form of original research. The Red Ice website isn't reliable, and while Jason Colavito might be an expert on some things, his blog should only be used with attribution, since it is a self published source. This is especially true for biographies of living peoples, (per WP:BLPSPS). Instead of citing examples from Red Ice itself (or any other unreliable sources), please try to cite reliable sources which specifically support these claims from an outside perspective. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand why I have been blocked, please elaborate. ColinSheffer (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Administrator who performed block has not adequately explained the reason for me being blocked. If they could do so, I would be able to better appeal block in accordance with Wikipedia policies. ColinSheffer (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Okay. An administrator with the ability to see the technical details of your account has connected it to several others. The name of the primary account was left on your user page. Kuru (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Based on my understanding of Wikipedia community regulations, I do not believe my account has been used abusively, and I do not believe my contributions warrant an indefinite block. Previous requests for elaboration on the reason for my blocking have proved frustratingly vague. User:Kuru has alluded to a "primary account" to which mine was connected by CheckUser. I can find the name of no such account on my talk page where I was told it could be found. I'm still not clear as to why I've been blocked, and am unable to edit to admin User:NinjaPirateRobot 's talk page and thus cannot contact him directly.ColinSheffer (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can see confirmed multiple accounts at play and the behavioural evidence is enough to link it to the master. Revoking talk page access; any further appeals can be made via UTRS. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 10 October 2018 (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.

You can actually contact NinjaRobotPirate (not NinjaPirateRobot) by mentioning them here, using the code: {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}} if you wish. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate Can you please explain why you blocked me indefinitely? I don't believe I've violated any community guidelines, and if so I'd like to make whatever amends are necessary to continue to contribute. 35:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked for sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, I am not a sock puppet. User:ColinSheffer. 20:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the user of whom you are stated to be a sockpuppet is on your user page, not your talk page. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, I've read it, I'm not a sock puppet.User:ColinSheffer