User talk:BrewJay

Sock Puppetry and Authenticity are enemies.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry. Now, at the moment, I don't know which blocked/banned user you are, there is no doubt this is not your first account and you're trying to evade a block or evade scrutiny. Normally I would have waited for an ANI discussion, but your inclusion of an email address in your signature makes me extra worried. If you have some sort of plausible explanation for this situation, please post here; I'm also going to open an WP:ANI discussion to get outside input. 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hav been editing wikipedia with an IP number for a long time to learn about syntax and common behaviour. I recently ran into somebody on User:Mangojuice/delete using twinkle to revert my edits in a haphazard fashion, so I finally decided to join. This will keep me from being called 75 on Talk:Cruciferous vegetables. While the document on signatures is against using external links, I did not think it applied to e-mail addresses. Please note that it is a strongly filtered e-mail address. It iz only about three months old, and I made a USENET post with it over a month ago. So far, I hav gotten zero spam. :) Even my held e-mail box iz empty. Sockpuppetry is aided by INauthenticity. Providing an e-mail address lets me authenticate myself with ThunderBird. You can even look me up on FaceBook. Bohgosity BumaskiL User Talk 11:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I don't believe you. If that were your real intent, I believe that your first edits would have been to one of those talk pages you were talking about; rather, your first edits were to WP policy pages. If the consensus at ANI is different, I'll unblock you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zymurgy's First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics:
Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a bigger can.
I made no edits to policy pages. I added sections to talk pages on guidelines, after first discussing one of my proposals on Talk:Cruciferous_vegetables as an IP#. Authenticity and sockpuppetry are enemies. Bohgosity BumaskiL User Talk 13:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Cruciferous vegetables this user may have edited as Special:Contributions/75.152.117.14. If they are going to be unblocked, I think a minimum condition would be for them to remove the email link from their signature. Some people have chosen to put their email address on their user page, but placing it in a signature, or signing talk comments with email, is going to cause sock alarms. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glatum's Law of Materialistic Acquisitiveness:
The perceived usefulness of an article is inversely proportional to its actual usefulness once bought and paid for.
If authenticity raises sock alarms, then my point will be the first thing an admin will see. I reported spam for fifteen years, and paid thirty dollars three months ago, to earn the privilege of displaying my e-mail in cleartext in public forums, and I really do not want to giv it up. I will if you insist. Sock puppetry and authenticity are antonyms. Bohgosity BumaskiL User Talk 14:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The impression that you are a joker, and the colorful modifications of your signature, won't help you be taken seriously when you are asking for unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The misfortunes hardest to bear are those which never come.
I do not see that color is relevant to whether I am a sock puppet. I hope that humour is welcome on wikipedia talk pages. My last "joke" refers to an intangible. I hav already been grilled, so I squirm about whether somebody else will make up rules for me, if I use an unblock template. Bohgosity BumaskiL Talk 15:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be an IP regular at Talk:Cruciferous vegetables (see Special:Contributions/75.152.119.213, Special:Contributions/75.152.127.203, Special:Contributions/75.152.117.14 and Special:Contributions/75.152.124.222). In response to one series of edits, I have expressed concern about behaviour which, in WP terms, may be considered disruptive, including a specious attempt to game the system [1]. Fwiw, I believe the MED project at least should be spared this sort of disingenuous time-wasting. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends: people who know you but like you anyway.
I do not argue with myself. Yes, 75.152.xxx.xxx is me. I do not understand why 86.161.xxx.xxx iz pointing at his own remarks as evidence against my integrity.Bohgosity BumaskiL Talk 16:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof this user is using sockpuppets. The user in question admitted to being 75.152.xxx.xxx. The email address in the signature may be an ethical problem. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still certain you're a returning user, and your primary purpose here is disruptive. Your means of conversing on Talk:Cruciferous vegetables seems to be quite disingenuous; "may" is not even close to being a weasel word, especially in the contexts you're discussing it. Furthermore, 75's very first edit was to add a template that only someone with extensive wiki-knowledge would be familiar with; you've also made comments here on this topic page showing you are a veteran (I'll not state which ones per WP:BEANS). So, I'm not going to unblock you. ~~However, since I don't have any actual proof, you are welcome to request an unblock and I explicitly give any admin the authority to unblock you without first consulting me.~~ (see below) I recommend that your unblock, however, explain what constructive purpose you plan to use this account for, since your contributions so far have not been constructive. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katz's Law:
Men and women will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted.
I want to get attribution credit from edits like this. It contains a lot of primary research. It also contains one review that confirms all of the primary research under benefits, so most of it has persisted for months. I do not want to draw another moderator into this conversation, because it is clear that Qwyrxian has already spent a lot of time on it, so Qwyrxian is uniquely qualified to judge whether anyone is entitled to question my faith. Bohgosity BumaskiL Talk 19:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BrewJay has confirmed via email that they are, in fact, the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked account. While that account is long stale, the topics of interest and style of writing are the same. Since that account is indefinitely blocked without email or talk page access, I am instating the same conditions here; BrewJay, if you wish to be unblocked, contact WP:BASC. While I won't reveal the contents of your email in detail, I will say that one thing made me hopeful: you said (and you said something similar above) that you are less likely to edit if you don't receive by-line credit. I sincerely hope that that is the case—I hope that since your named account has again been removed, you will stop editing. The vast majority of your edits, and basically all of the edits on policy pages and policy page talk pages, are disruptive. I don't know if this is due to lack of competence or due to intentional disruption, but it needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, BrewJay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!