User talk:Lavalizard101/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
January 2016
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Klameliidae, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia. However, red links should generally not be removed from articles, as they are useful and encourage the creation of new articles. Please don't remove them in the future unless they meet the criteria listed here. Thanks! Here are some other pages that you might find helpful:
Getting Started
The five pillars
How to edit a page
How to write your first article
Common mistakes
LibertyOrDeath (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I see you've made a number of edits of this nature. I'm going to revert any which were not an appropriate removal, or you may do so yourself, and please remember not to do that in the future. If you're looking for other ways to contribute, please view the links above, and you can also learn editing techniques by playing The Wikipedia Adventure. If you need help, you can try Where To Ask Questions or . Thanks and happy editing! LibertyOrDeath (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 12 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Centrosaurinae page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
Hello, I'm NottNott. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Astigmatina with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. NottNott talk|contrib 15:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Synonymies
Your edit that you labelled as "Cryptodira cannot be the synonym of Cryptodira because they are the same word created at the same time by the same person thus are equal and not synonyms" This is a biological synonymy, it has nothing to do with words or whatever in language. It is to demonstrate when the name Cryptodira came into being within the synonymy. Particularly since in the case of Cryptodira there are older unavailable names. ----
April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarcopterygii may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ]'', the earliest known bony fish, lived during the [[Late Silurian]], 419 million years ago).<ref name="Michael J. Ryan, PH.D., Paleoblog">{{cite web|url=http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2009/
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarcopterygii may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ]'', the earliest known bony fish, lived during the [[Late Silurian]], 419 million years ago).<ref name="Michael J. Ryan, PH.D., Paleoblog">{{cite web|url=http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2009/
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Changes to taxonomy
Please stop making changes to taxonomy on stem-tetrapod pages without discussing them on Talk. You are making assertions about what groups belong where in your edit summaries without adding citations in the articles. Furthermore, you have on several occasions falsified the results of phylogenetic analyses to fit where you think a taxon should be placed. A cladogram is the result of a computer analysis, not a diagram showing where things "should" belong based on some other source. You also added Wendiceratops to the cladogram on Centrosaurinae. That analysis was published several years before Wendiceratops was discovered. You need to either completely re-write the cladogram to follow a published result that included this taxon, or not include it, you can't simply plug it into where it "should" go without introducing original synthesis. Thank you. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Self redirects
Hello! You may not have realized it, but you've added Circular redirects on some articles, which results in links going to the same page. (e.g. both Andrognathidae and Platydesmidae both redirect to Platydesmida, since there is so little content on each family). In many cases this is unwarranted, see WP:SELFREDIRECT for more info. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive editing in taxonomic articles
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katietalk 21:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced changes to Elasmobranchii#Taxonomy
Hello, I've reverted these changes because they made the article worse rather than better. The problem is that you changed a taxonomic list without updating the sourcing information. The result is a list that comes from no-one-knows-where that falsely claims to come from Compagno 2005. If you haven't read the guidance at WP:VER, you really should. I may revert other similar edits if I come across them.
Try not to be discouraged, think carefully about your edits, read the guidance, and ask if you don't understand what is expected of a wikipedia editor. Someone has already dropped a bunch of useful links for you in the first thread on this page #January 2016.
TuxLibNit (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced changes to Damselfly
Hi, I see you have now twice tried to make unsourced changes to this article, and that you have been making similar unsourced changes to other articles, as per the above message. Please read about Verifiability and Reliable sources, both of which are central pillars of Wikipedia.
I have no idea what you may meant by your edit comment, but unsourced changes are simply not acceptable.
If you can't see why sources might be needed for changes to taxonomy, consider this: suppose an editor (let's call her Valerie) decides she knows taxonomy and starts to update an article. She believes that horses (family Equidae) are descended from a group of dinosaurs (Order Saurischia), and accordingly marks all the horse articles as Clade Dinosauria, Class Reptilia. Valerie believes that WP:RS are not needed for changes to taxonomy, so she feels entirely justified in inserting these changes in all the articles. What she should have done is to use reliable sources, and she would not have seen the need to make those particular changes; and if she had found a genuine taxonomic change, she would have been able to justify it by citing her sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note that according to §WP:PROVEIT in the WP:VER page I linked to last time, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." When challenged don't argue, identify your source (like Chiswick Chap did). Until you do there is no basis for further discussion.
- TuxLibNit (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
On taxonomy edits
| Lavalizard101/Archive 1 | |
|---|---|
Scientific classification 
| |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Chordata |
| Class: | Mammalia |
| Order: | Primates |
| Suborder: | Haplorhini |
| Infraorder: | Simiiformes |
| Family: | Hominidae |
| Subfamily: | Homininae |
| Tribe: | Hominini |
| Subtribe: | Hominina |
| Genus: | Homo Linnaeus, 1758 |
I noticed that you have been involved in a number of disputes over taxonomic classifications. It is advisable to adhere to the community consensus. This is why Template:Automatic taxobox exists; feel free to use it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Santana and Crato Formation date ranges
There is uncertainty in the dating of both formations. Martill et al. (2007) describe the Crato Formation as being somewhere between the late Aptian and early Albian, and that it is "some 10 mya" older than the Santana Formation (i.e. not a well-defined gap in time). Martill (2007) notes that there is no strong support for either Aptian, Albian, or even Cenomanian ages for the Santana Formation. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Reverting your edits
I am not sure what you were trying at Prionoceridae with this - I hope you are aware of the zoological convention that authors are in brackets when the species is originally described in a different genus. Also you changed some of the species name endings which essentially makes the binomial incorrect. I am not sure of the value of putting in red-links, these are extremely obscure species and there is not much of a chance that anyone is going to be making species entries of any value. Shyamal (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Please use reliable sources for taxonomic edits
Hi. I see that you recently deleted the tribe Tetropini from the Lamiinae article. If you had done research, you would have found that there is in fact a tribe Tetropini, containing the genus Tetrops [1]. You seem to be making numerous edits without making use of reliable authoritative sources, and good intentions aside, you run the risk of making errors such as this one when you do not use due diligence. I'm not asking you to stop editing, but please do not edit without knowing for a fact that the edit is in keeping with the recognized taxonomy. Dyanega (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Titanopteryx
It is inappropriate to overwrite preexisting pages the way that you have done at Titanopteryx. Titanopteryx is a noted former name for a dinosaur species, and other pages which discuss it refer to this page as a redirect to its article. If you're going to overwrite that redirect you need to make sure to fix those incoming links by checking the "what links here" tool, which you can find along the menu at the left when you're viewing the page. I've already fixed this for you but please check for incoming links if you overwrite any more redirects.
You also have not provided any sources for your new article. Please add a source when you have a moment. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Copyright problem on Simolestes
I have removed the material you included in the above article that you copied from the copyright web page http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/s/simolestes.html. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed as it does not appear to be released under a compatible license. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Template:Taxonomy/Hoplocercidae a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Hoplocercidae a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Carboniferous Peirod listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carboniferous Peirod. Since you had some involvement with the Carboniferous Peirod redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
July 2017
Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ceratopsia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Peaceray (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for using the edit summary on Ceratopsia. Helioceratops still lists Ceratopsia as its suborder but lists no family. Would you please consider correcting that to Archaeocersatopsidae for consistency? Peaceray (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Ranks in taxonomy templates
Hi, it's always good to see more taxonomy templates being created, but the rank has to be the Latinized form. Parts of the autotaxobox system may appear to work with English names for ranks in a taxonomy template, but some features don't work correctly. There's a list of accepted Latin ranks and their English equivalents here, which you may like to bookmark if you create a lot of taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just to remind you again that ranks in taxonomy templates must be Latin. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Automatic taxobox usage
Hi Lavalizard101. I've just converted some of your uses of {{automatic taxobox}} to {{speciesbox}} because it's the more appropriate template to use on monospecific genera articles where the species should be displayed (see relevant speciesbox documentation here). The automatic taxobox template should be used for taxa above species (see this documentation), and when the automatic taxobox template was used with a |binomial parameter the page was added to this cleanup category. This is because |taxon should be used instead of the binomial parameter with the speciesbox template, like my edit here to Diarthrognathus. Or, they can be split into |genus and |species (see this doc). I've just recently started learning this template system also—it's a lot to figure out! – Rhinopias (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point with this, but until it has reliable sources confirimng it, it isn't ready for the mainspace. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Lavalizard101. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asian land mammal age, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Eurasian magpie
I reverted this GF edit for the following reasons. Race is not a synonym for species (first change), it's never been restricted to humans, and its application to animals doesn't have the baggage that it does when applied to humans. If you think I'm wrong please discuss on the article talk page, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
IPBE
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Requesting an IP address block exemption, because one of the IP addresses that I use has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider when it is not it is a private family computer. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. Please let us know the IP address so we can investigate this claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2018 (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.
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Requesting an IP address block exemption, because my IP address is changing daily (always to ones that are blocked as they are used by web host providers as well) and my ISP refuse to do anything about it. So this is the only option I can think of. User:Berean Hunter has also suggested that I request an IPBE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per WP:IPEXEMPTCONDITIONS, "How to request: Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System. You must ask from your registered account. Requests posted to the user talk page of the IP address will be automatically declined." SQLQuery me! 07:04, 28 February 2018 (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.
- User:SQL WP:IPBE literally states to place this template on the bottom of the talk page in the summary at the top. So the Wikipedia policy page is contradicting itself.Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20762 was submitted on Feb 28, 2018 10:41:44. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Rhopalodontidae
Hello, Lavalizard101,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Rhopalodontidae should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhopalodontidae .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Natureium (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
IP addresses
Just an FYI: you say different computers on the same network will have different IP addresses over at User talk:MoleseyKid. That might be true in your example, but it's certainly not true for anyone using a router; they'll all be exposed to the outside world with only the address of the router. Checkuser might be able to see my external address of 150.181.142.168, but it has no way of knowing that there are dozens of computers using that address. In short, there can easily be multiple legitimate users on the same IP. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) |
- I don't understand this at all. I thought you were desiring to be a serious editor. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am genuinely sorry for the disruption that was caused by me creating all the bad hand accounts. I have not got a complete rationale behind the creation of the bad hand accounts (I just created them as and when I had an impulse/idea of what I could have an account to get blocked {for general amusement}).
I am happy for you to leave account creation disabled to stop me from doing this if it is possible.
Further there are other accounts I created that were not found in the sockpuppet investigation these are: van323dal 323van and a third account for which I cannot remember the name of that I know that used to edit ken ham to say he was a fraudster. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You admit here that you created many accounts and used them to publish attacks on living persons, for your "general amusement". You have not disclosed all of your "bad hand" accounts, and you indicate that you feel you need a technical restriction to stop you from doing it again. I don't think you understand at all how serious your disruption has been. You thought it would be fun to see how much harmful misinformation you could add here before getting blocked, like real people's lives are just a game for you to play, and well congratulations, you win, and your prize is an indefinite block. If you're at all serious about being a constructive contributor, have a look at Wikipedia:Standard offer. Unblock declined. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (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.
Unblock under SO
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am deeply sorry for the disruption I caused back in July 2018, I promise to never cause disruption again. As Ivanvector said to do; here is a list of all the accounts I have ever used: Lavalizard101 (this one), User:Waterwhale12, User:Iceiguana13, User:van323dal, User:323van, User:TruthINJC and User:TruthINJC2, User:Aarlai (the account I couldn't remember the name of back in July).
If the community feels that I have done enough to regain their trust and want to know what areas I intend to edit; the area I intend to edit would be Palaeontology. If the community feels that I have not done enough to regain their trust then I understand and will accept their decision.Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser evidence shows you have been editing logged out for months, right up to yesterday. Please see WP:LOUTSOCK and how it relates to WP:BADSOCK, and then read up on WP:STANDARDOFFER again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (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.
- I won't decline this because I declined the last request and have not run a CU, but this is not even kind of close to the complete list of sock accounts that have already been publicly confirmed, as recently as the end of November (just a little bit over two months ago), and has crossed onto Commons. Furthermore, the user created numerous hoax paleontology articles with many socks, in good-hand-bad-hand fashion, added bogus negative info to biographies, and admitted above that they did it compulsively and because they thought it would be fun. They should not be allowed to edit at all, but if they are they should be strictly banned from paleontology and biographies. This request does not seem to be in good faith and should be declined. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That is incorrect, my IceIguana13 account was originally thought to have been a sock of User:Lapitavenator, but was found not to have been, instead it was matched to me (the correct owner of that account) not Lapitavenator. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll look into that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to be correct ([2]), the account is mis-tagged, it seems to have been an oversight after splitting Lavalizard101's set of accounts from Lapitavenator. My apologies, I'll correct that. Courtesy ping Dlohcierekim, Bbb23, and Sir Sputnik. Still investigating, I'll comment further in a bit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That is also incorrect, if its to do with the IP's from my university, then I am one of 50 first year students studying palaeontology, many of which use Wikipedia, so I cannot be able to control all 50 students to not edit Wikipedia anonymously just so that I can complete the Standard Offer (I have asked several of them if they wanted to be editors and they said they already edit anonymously so you're checks could have brought them up as if they were me and I, as well as you, would be none the wiser). All the time I am at university I will be unable to complete the Standard offer if this is not taken into account as admins may see people on my course who edit anonymously and think its me.Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvecotr: please see above comment. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector:, please see above comment. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've reviewed both the CheckUser and behavioral data again. Taking into account all of the factors here, it is my view that it is likely that you are editing logged out. I personally would not feel comfortable unblocking you at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok so I've had a look at the IP range that the university uses, and I have came across a number of edits to palaeontology and animal related articles, most of which have either no edit summary or a very simple one like grammar or spelling. Any number of the ~22,000 students here at the University of Portsmouth could have done them (not just those on the Palaeontology course as I said earlier as I thought that it may have been that the evidence was just edits to palaeontology articles) the IP range is used by the university in all its buildings (as they are all on the same Wi-fi Network, two of these buildings are accommodation buildings that house almost 500 first year students), as such I have come to the conclusion that all the while I am at university I will not be unblocked as any number of students could edit in a similar manner to how I have sometimes done (I admit that I don't use edit summaries all the time and sometimes have just used a simple edit summary) and there would be behavioural data to match me when in reality it could be a number of different people who edit Wikipedia anonymously. As I have no idea how to prove that it is not me (that would be a negative of which cannot be proven) I have decided that if this unblock request is declined I will, for the next three years at least, not ask to be unblocked as I fear that if I try again I will get the same result. 14:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
per my comments above. No comments as to the specific IPs involved, but if the edits I saw came from someone other than you, I would be very surprised. You can appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee by following the instructions here. At this point, they are your best avenue for appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2019 (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.
- Following up on TonyBallioni's decline: this block involves private information outside the scope of Checkuser. If you wish to appeal further you must contact the Arbitration Committee and follow their advice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
unblock under SO (2nd SO attempt)
Background:Six months ago I attempted the standard offer for the first time only to be told that Checkuser and/or behavioural evidence showed that I was editing while logged out when I wasn't. When I tried to explain why the evidence may lead to incorrect conclusions I was told that as this involved private information outside the scope of Checkuser (probably the fact that at the time I was at university which would probably would've needed proving) I would need to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I at the time was going to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, however I became busy with assignments and didn't have chance to. A few weeks later when I was less busy I thought that I would attempt the Standard Offer again as it would mean that I spent most of it at home thus it would mean that the likelihood of Checkuser and/or behavioural evidence showing that I was editing logged out when I wasn't was slim. As such the unblock request follows below this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Over a year ago I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts (which I admit I was doing). I deeply regret doing this and have since spent the time that would have been spent editing Wikipedia reading unblock requests to try to gain an understanding of what an acceptable unlock request would be. I am not going to feign ignorance of the rules as when I created the accounts I knew it was wrong, that and I myself have commented on unblock requests for sockpuppetry so it wouldn't be possible for me to not know of the rules for sockpuppeting. I have shown that I can be a constructive editor (given the over 8000 edits under this account with only a handful towards the beginning being disruptive (the edit warring I got into during the beginning)). I will refrain from making any accounts (whether good hand or bad hand accounts). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you were told when your last request was declined, your case involves private information outside Checkuser's access. You must appeal to the arbitration committee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:16, 18 August 2019 (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.
After thoughts not important to the main unblock request: The reason the Checkuser evidence may have matched six months ago was because (if down to the IPs) the IP range that my computer was on was used by the university in all buildings (as they were on the same Wi-Fi), if its browser used then all the computers in the university all use the same browser whereas when I am on my laptop I use a different browser I do use the same browser as the laptops when on my phone but haven't logged onto my phone with this account in over a year but have used my phone to edit with the Waterwhale12 account (before it got blocked a year ago and linked with me obviously).
Reasons behavioural evidence may have matched six months ago : the edit history of the IP range used by the university indicates at least one editor with an interest in palaeontology which is not a surprise that there are people who edit Wikipedia as this university is one of the only two universities in the UK that offer palaeontology as a course. Looking at the edits themselves: i see one edit where one of the IPs linked to a discussion I was involved in which without context could seem like it was me that did that edit. But when my edit count is taken into account (8665, excluding this one) it isn't surprising that given the sheer amount of edits I have that an unrelated editor with an interest in palaeontology who goes to the same uni as me would eventually come across an edit to a discussion i was in (especially given the fact that before my block i was often found commenting on unblock requests). I do admit that one of the other similarities may seem striking: the familiarity with automatic taxoboxes, I know it seems highly unlikely that an unrelated editor on the same range also knows about automatic taxoboxes but given the universal use of them on Wikipedia by articles on animals it is again not surprising that eventually any editor with an interest in animals (both alive and extinct) would come across automatic taxoboxes and utilise them (I've even told course mates that it makes things easier to use them). The only other similarities that appear to me are the use of italics and not using edit summaries/using the basic edit summaries. These are easily explained as being both too common to really say anything (i.e. most people don't use edit summaries/use basic edit summaries) and most people interested in animals should know that italics should be used for genus and species scientific names.
Fell free to reply if you need any more information, or have a question.Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Lavalizard101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I feel like my last request wasn't read properly because I said in the preverb to it that private info would no longer be needed. Hence I would like an admin to properly investigate rather than flat out state the same as my last decline. If you feel that private info is required can you at least tell me as to why you think that is. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Talk page access revoked. Appeal to the Arbitration Committee, we do not have the authority to consider lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2019 (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.
I would also prefer if it was an administrator other than Ivanvector as he has declined three unblock requests and I have seen that declining multiple times is frowned upon. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's true, I did, I hadn't noticed that today. I didn't decline your next-to-most-recent request and I did not look back further than that, but you're right that I shouldn't have declined the most recent request. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that you must appeal to the arbitration committee; Yamla has advised you of the same. We're not saying you cannot be unblocked, only that we do not have the authority to do it so your request cannot be processed. Please email the committee, they will advise you on next steps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
User has engaged in block evasion as Tknifton, from September, 2019 until May, 2020. When caught, they went out of their way to deny the sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)