User talk:CrumpPlint

TrumpClinton, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TrumpClinton! 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, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, TrumpClinton, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

CrumpPlint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Renamed and unblocked, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TrumpClinton (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias!CrumpPlint (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tigrayans has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Tigrayans was changed by CrumpPlint (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.88754 on 2017-01-31T07:57:07+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot, that is fine you reverted my edits. My edits were not vandalism. I simply was removing undue weighted material. Article was about Tigrayans yet everything written was about Tigrinyas. Article needs major cleanup.CrumpPlint (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm KNHaw. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Menelik II seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KNHaw ^(talk) 23:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out to me on the edit. My specific concern had been the use of "atrocities" in the section title. Usually, that's a huge red flag. On reading the entirety of the section, especially the last few paragraphs, that does indeed seem to be a fair title of the section.

To be clear, I didn't doubt that atrocities occurred, just that it was the focus of a third of the section. But, as I read it... I was wrong.

Thank you for calling me out on it and thank you for your good work.

KNHaw ^(talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding in such a quick manner. I only added the term in addition to the other terms, if we can shorten to one word that captures all the aspects of the section, that would be much appreciated. Anyways, thanks for considering my perspective.CrumpPlint (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I really appreciate your diplomatic correction of my error. KNHaw ^(talk) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!CrumpPlint (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Stop vandalising pages on Wikipedia with your own agenda and confusing others. Resourcer1 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you talking about Tigrayans? I understand if you disagree with my edits, but 'vandalism' is an awfully strong term, let's discuss our differences. CrumpPlint (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not sure why I am blocked.If it has anything to do with the Tigrayans article where Resourcer1 and Sennaitgebremariam were edit warring. I was not involved in their edit war. Requesting to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for sockpuppetry, abusing multiple accounts. Huon (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (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.

CrumpPlint (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Where is the sockpuppet investigation that concluded this?CrumpPlint (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of one, but Bbb23 is a CheckUser and made the connection. We don't need a formal investigation when there's sufficient evidence already. Huon (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subjective conclusion not based on evidence and I was not giving any reason why? for this block by Bbb23.CrumpPlint (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's based on technical evidence linking your accounts. Huon (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a biased conclusion by Bbb23.CrumpPlint (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 stated this in the "investigation against me": [1] I shouldn't be blocked because Resourcer1 and Sennaitgebremariam had an edit war which led to Bbb23 deciding just to block me for keep from editting in the Tigrayan article "peaceful". I didn't receive any due process here. This is clearly Bias against me for no reason.CrumpPlint (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock request due to no evidence provided to me. If the Due Process of Wikipedia is not being followed here, then this Block of my account is based on Prejudice and Bias of Bbb23 who has Mentor-Mentee relationship with Resourcer1 who made two Sockpuppet Investigations that were either Closed or Closed [2] and [3] due to being Baseless. Provide the evidence of this supposed "sockpuppet" conclusion when no investigation has concluded so. This continued block of my account is Politically biased by Bbb23 and his/her prejudices against my edits? or pro-defense of Resroucer1 user.

Decline reason:

There's been no violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines in placing a block upon you. Your account was investigated by someone with checkuser access. They determined with certainty that you had violated WP:SOCK. They then blocked you. Your claim of prejudice, bias, and political bias is not supported. Yamla (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2017 (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.

CrumpPlint (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I disagree.CrumpPlint (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Wikipedia

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).

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

Request reason:

This is just to inform of my decision to Block Wikipedia and its fallible contributors notably the admins, checkusers, sockpuppet users etc.Wikipedia is unwelcoming to users with a different opinion. Accusations of sockpuppetry are used to stifle discussion, collaboration. I am leaving wikipedia since I have been blocked for "sockpuppetry" when admins like Bbb23 permit truly disruptive user accounts to continue. Wikipedia isn't a reliable "encylcopedia" and will not be if biased decisions like my block are permitted while allowing users with mulitple accounts to request "sockpuppet investigations" such as the user Resourcer1. This "project" has failed and will continue to fail because the users are biased and Klanish. Bbb23 will never do Checkuser sockpuppet check of Resourcer1 because of his/her bias. Per Wikipedia guidelines, a Checkuser is supposed to do an SPI of the requester as well. That did not happen and won't happen because Bbb23 are accomplices or some of form meatpuppet relationship Resourcer1 being some bottom meatpuppet of Bbb23.CrumpPlint (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2017 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:01, 1 March 2017 (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 Admins and Checkusers are really robots. You didn't even read the purpose of my "Leaving Wikipedia". I am not requesting to be unblocked, I am Leaving Wikipedia.CrumpPlint (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe don't use the unblock template? Goodbye, best of luck for the future. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retired from Wikipedia, Stop Editing on my user Talkpage

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia Incase some people who don't know how to read. STOP EDITTING on My Talkpage. I am done with this Failed Project Called Wikipedia. Specifically for Resourcer1 STOP EDITTING on My USER Talkpage. I no longer am editting on Wikipedia as it is Biased in your favor with Biased Bbb23 admins. Enjoy Wikipedia because I sure as heck will not be using it for "information".CrumpPlint (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]