User talk:AnnieLess
|
Reverting[edit]
I noticed you reverted a revert to your edits on United States customary units with an edit summary was good. Differences of opinion about an article's content should be discussed on the article's talk page to identify a consensus. Please take care to assume good faith of other editors.
Have a look at the etiquette of bold, revert, discuss and do spend a few hours perusing our major policies and guidelines which I have added linking to above. Thanks for contributing! —EncMstr (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
de Morgan and the Metric System[edit]
The discussion about de Morgan in the article Metric System is your view against my view. The way to resolve the issue is NOT, repeat NOT by plastering banners across the page. The way is to resolve disputes is described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please read that. You have also obviously not read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Abuse of tags as requested in an earlier post of mine. This is a final warning, if you reinstate the banner without attempting to resolve the issue through a third party, I will be reporting you for vandalism. Martinvl (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please cut the aggression and stop the threats. The solution is clear - add the reason why de Morgan's comments are significant, or remove his comments. If you are having difficulty finding a reason, then discuss the possibilities, but don't brush it under the carpet. I'll help you to phrase it if you like, but what is it exactly? AnnieLess (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
ANI notification[edit]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
Why?[edit]
AnnieLess (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked out of the blue, by someone I have never been involved with or even heard of, and I cannot see why. It was apparently alleged by someone, somewhere, that I am a sock-puppet of another user, but no evidence was offered and no-one asked me my opinion. If any evidence was considered, please disclose it so that I may challenge its authenticity. If it is normal for blocks to be imposed like this, without any evidence or investigation taking place then please disregard this request, and I will register a new account to carry on with. Thanks. AnnieLess (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is clear, based on a review of your behavior, that you are in fact a sockpuppet of DeFacto. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:58, 15 May 2013 (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.
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence there involving me, just an allegation based on unfounded speculation such as 'The name "AnnieLess" looks like a play on the words "Any Less"'! I take it that you must think there was sufficient there to warrant a block? And why was it taken without question? And who is toddst1, and why did he get involved? AnnieLess (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
AnnieLess (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Who took part in this so-called "review", and where is it documented? Or is that just your personal conclusion after a quick glance at the evidence that 'the name "AnnieLess" looks like a play on the words "Any Less"'? I looked at the link given by Zebedee and there is no evidence there involving me, just an allegation based on unfounded speculation such as that I mention above. I take it that you must think there was sufficient there to warrant a block? And why was that flimsy account accepted as evidence (if indeed it was) without question? And who is toddst1, and why did he get involved? How do I get my access back which has been removed through no fault of my own, and with no opportunity to challenge the action? AnnieLess (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's considerable behavioral evidence connecting you and DeFacto. That's at least well-founded speculation. It's based on a lot more than your name, and you are being disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that it is. As for having "no opportunity to challenge the action", well, here I am responding to your second such challenge. Negatively. If you are going to put up another request, I strongly suggest you find better arguments to make, otherwise I would not be surprised if the reviewing admin not only declines the request but revokes your talk page access as well for wasting our time. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2013 (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.
- Thank you for giving this request your due consideration Daniel. I see from your edit history that you could have wasted as much as 6 minutes before deciding, on the balance of probabilities no doubt, that what looks like a bunch of ill-conceived crap to me, is in fact sound justification for an indefinite block. If there was any element of justice or fair play involved in this process, the opportunity to defend oneself would be before the jury retires to consider the evidence (there is a neutral and randomly selected panel making these judgements I assume) and not after the sentence has been carried out. What sort of "arguments" have I got to make to get this crazy and despicable charge dropped? Is the onus on me to explain the blindingly obvious for each and every allegation - the alternative, and infinitely more plausible to all but an idiot, explanation? AnnieLess (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- How about addressing the allegations? The ANI discussion was quite brief, but links your activities to DeFacto (talk · contribs) who was banned indefinitely. The evidence for the connection between you and DeFacto is here. Present your case here. Further whining and attacks will result in loss of talk page editing. —EncMstr (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
AnnieLess (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense then. Under each of the speculative allegations from the link given by EncMstr above I give the actual and clearly more obvious explanation. Speculation 1. 'The name "AnnieLess" looks like a play on the words "Any Less", similar to the play on words by other sockpuppets of DeFacto - for example User:Bill le Conquérant and User:Cap-Saint-Martin (Cap Martinvl’s edits).' *The name AnnieLess doesn't look anything like a play on the words "Any Less", and even if it did, what is the significance of the phrase "Any Less"? Neither Bill le Conquérant (clearly alluding to William the Conqueror) nor Cap-Saint-Martin (a place near Montreal according to Google maps) look similar. Speculation 2. 'AnnieLess appears to be a new Wikipedia user. The edits and approach taken on talk pages and the way in which (s)he avoided a 3RR warming suggests that AnnieLess seems conversant with Wikipedia procedures. On the other hand AnnieLess had avoided any references to any WP: pages, something that one woudl expect form a new user. Taking these two together, one cannot rule out that AnnieLess is really DeFacto and that (s)he is avoiding the traps that caught him/her out in the past, but slipped up by splashing this banner accross the article.' *AnnieLess appears to be new because I am new. Perhaps I avoided a 3RR warning because I had no idea what one was, rather than because I was conversant with procedures, which being new, I am not. If I had made any references to WP pages it would have been accidental as I was not aware of what they are. I couldn't have avoided traps that I had been caught in before because I hadn't been caught in any before. I didn't splash any banner anywhere, I copied and pasted what I thought was an appropriate alert that I had seen in another article - and, if I remember correctly, I actually explained all that, including a mention of which article I found it in, at the time, mainly because I wasn't too confident that it was the correct procedure in such circumstances. Speculation 3. 'DeFacto and his Sockpuppets have been hounding me on the topic of metrication for over a year. His contribution list shows an interest in, amongst others, Metrication in the United Kingdom, Tonne, Litre, Metric Martyrs and Metrication. The bulk of AnnieLess’ changes are connected with metrication – his/her contribution list shows Metric system and Kilogram while the changes in United States customary units were related to metrication.' *DeFacto seems to have been involved in hundreds, if not thousands, of different articles covering a vast range of subjects. That my interest has, so far, been mostly confined to a couple of articles following links from the US customary units article, would to anyone thinking straight, tend to rule-out, rather than confirm, any connection with the wide coverage DeFacto seems to have been involved in. Speculation 4. 'DeFacto had an editing style of watering down statements of fact – in this example he replaced the words "The civil service is bound by law to follow EU directives relating to public administration" with the words "civil servants might be constrained by standards and procedures which dictate the measures to be used" while in this example, AnnieLess added the words "may have" when replacing the sizes of those units varied as did their relationship with the sizes of those units may have varied and the relationships.' *I was replacing a clearly unsupportable statement with a supportable and credible statement - nothing to do with watering anything down. Speculation 5. 'DeFacto would add inappropriate banners to blow his point out of proportion – for example here (citations might not be 100% perfect, but the article has still not been to be rated for quality) while AnnieLess added this banner because (s)he was not satisfied with the notability of the paragraph even though two different reviewers in a Peer Review made no comment about this quotation.' *I copied and pasted an alert to highlight my incredulity that de Morgan's comments, made fifty or more years after the event, were being related to the event of fifty years earlier without any explanation. That I was drawing attention to this anomaly, which had previously passed unnoticed, is a reflection of my attention to detail and the quality of any earlier review, not proof that I, like DeFacto before me apparently, had a penchant for inappropriate banners! Speculation 6. 'When adding this flag, DeFacto described terminology that was taken straight from a source as "ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex". AnnieLess used the words "highly ambiguous " in this talk section where (s)he disputes the use of the words "realisation", "prototype", "phenomena" and "artefact", even though all four are taken straight from the SI Brochure (the metrication "bible"), albeit with UK rather than US spellings. This is a classic way of attacking an article when the article cannot be attacked on any other grounds.' *The ambiguous use of words which have multiple meanings, in writing about anything, is poor writing. That someone else has noticed similarly poor writing by the same author, at some previous time in some other article, is probably a reflection that the author has a bad habit of copying and pasting directly from primary sources, rather than paraphrasing in plain English for the benefit of non-expert readers - rather than that the critics must clearly be the same person up to no good. My view is that these allegations are a determined effort to eliminate, by fair means or foul, the attentions of an editor who is perceived as a thorn in his side, by an editor determined to force his opinion into the article, and who is too arrogant to accept reasonable criticism or suggestions for improvement from a newcomer, or perhaps from anyone. And to put the record straight, my gender is male and I recently turned to Wikipedia whilst still feeling sorry for myself following the loss of my long-term partner, Annie, hence the Annie-less moniker. AnnieLess (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Thank you; this long unblock request gave me the opportunity to compare it with other unblock requests made by other sockpuppets of User:DeFacto, all of whom denied being sockpuppets in a very similar writing style. Added to the evidence you list, it seems much more likely that you are User:DeFacto than that you are not. Would you please stop making sockpuppets? Your actions make Wikipedia editors less trusting, and that makes the world a little worse. Why not make it a little better instead? Maybe, instead of making another Wikipedia account, you could delete the Wikipedia bookmark, go outside, and plant some flowers. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 May 2013 (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.