User talk:Optakeover/Archive/2019/April
 | 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. |
That cited information is biased
Many of the books, Research papers they mentioned that they(Kamma) are kshatriyas Rajasekhar Naidu (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Time and Templates
When people's sensibilities are at stake I feel beholden to explain a bit better than a 'nope' template. If the 'editor' is blatantly messing up - not just misunderstanding - then they get 'nope'. Anyway, this is what I was working on as explanation. Shenme (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Requesting Unblock of User:Optakeover123
Optakeover/Archive/2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I initially requested User:Floquenbeam to block this doppelganger account, User:Optakeover123 due to lost access. In 2016, I discovered an account called "Optakeover123" existed. I tried to log in, but I didn't know the password then and I couldn't get in. As it was so long ago I had no idea if it was an attempt of another user to impersonate me or an account I created myself (it was created in 2008). I decided to request Floquenbeam to block the account as a security measure. I have been making repeated attempts since then to crack the account. A few hours ago I decided to try one password and I managed to get in, and I have secured it by changing the password. My intention to keep this account is as a doppelganger, which is per WP:VALIDALT policy for alternate accounts. If there is no reason why this alternate account should be blocked, my request is to be given the autonomy to choose what should be done to it. I believe I created the account in error, as I was a new editor and didn't read WP:SOCK. However the lack of edits on that account and demonstrates my commitment to keep alternate accounts within Wikipedia policy and to fully disclose all alternate accounts I have ever created. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'm willing to unblock based on the reasoning here, but need you to confirm that you still want it unblocked, and haven't changed your mind. ST47 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Floquenbeam, the blocking admin. Permalink of original request for block: [1]. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you still want User:Optakeover123 unblocked? Do you intend to edit with it? (I was going to unblock it, but noticed that you removed the unblock template from that account.) ST47 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ST47: Yes I would like the account unblocked, and No the account will not be used for editing. Please refer to the reasons in the above template. I initially did post the unblock request on Optakeover123, but read the guide to unblocking and decided to request unblock on my master account instead. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 23:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Your continued blanking of that talk page is in error. Let it go. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies. The user actually messaged me on my talk page to remind me on his right to blank his own space, so I reverted my revert. I only made one revert on his page. :) [2] Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 00:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies:Just for the record as I strive to be 100% accountable: [3] for the revert of his blank, [4] for the warning, [5] reverting my revert, and [6] attempt to fix his ping. Only one revert, and those were all the edits I ever did on the user's talk page. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 01:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated misuse of undo accusations by an IP. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 12:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)