User talk:Roz Lipchitz

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Roz Lipchitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any 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. We're so glad you're here! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? Please let me know why? I am at a loss!

Decline reason:

Presumably, you have been identified by a checkuser as a sock of the long-since blocked User:Roz Lipschitz. Kuru (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. I am a real person. I do not spell my name like the person you claim was blocked a long time ago nor do I know anything about that. I do not understand what I did that was wrong. I have hardly edited at all.

Decline reason:

There's technical evidence connecting this account to others. You may want to address that. Huon (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

In addition to prohibiting sockpuppetry, we don't permit meatpuppetry either; this account and Door-Matt were clearly tag-team editing Paul Barresi. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:35, 27 October 2015 (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.

I do not know what possible technical evidence you could have against me. My huband uses the same computer as me but we are not connected. I am not connected to any other account. Please let me know what I did! I am so lost!

I don't have access to the technical evidence, but going by your most recent contributions I'd assume the name "Dooor-Matt" should sound familiar to you. Huon (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Door-Matt is my husband whose real name is Harvey Lipchitz. We are not sock puppets. Don't I have a right to view evidence against me? I am at a loss at to what I did which is considered damaging. Please help me understand. Roz Lipchitz (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the Checkusers abide by this request, it will not be on a publicly-viewable page. Even then, CUs generally don't abide by this request on the grounds that this is giving information to users that may help them circumvent their block, in most cases. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your husband and you edited the same article, supporting each other, without giving an indication that there's a real-world connection between the two of you. Wikipedia cannot tell how many humans edit from one computer; if we cannot tell your edits apart, we treat you as one and the same. See also WP:MEAT. Huon (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How were we supposed to know that something was wrong unless wikipedia tells us. It is unfair to block us because we are not sock puppets. We have done nothing abusive and have not caused any harm. I do not understand why we were not informed that wikipedia was unhappy with us and given instructions as to how to improve our editing. I do not believe there is any technical evidence against me. I think someone decided to hate us and now they are abusing us. This is not fair because anything we did we did not even know that we were doing it. Roz Lipchitz (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated above that you and your husband use the same computer. To us, it genuinely looks like you were sockpuppets. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not sock puppets! As a matter of fact I had never even heard of sock puppets until this abrupt blocking occurred. I had to look it up! Please tell me what evidence you have! This is unfair. How could we be sock puppets when we did not even know what that is? Roz Lipchitz (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you state above, and I quote, "My hu[s]band uses the same computer as me[...]". This means that based off of that you two are necessarily using the same IP to edit, and as a result to us you genuinely look like sockpuppets/alts/gimmicks/etc. Note that this is just based off of what you yourself have said, as Checkusers are forbidden from revealing their results in public forums barring egregious abuse (which this is not). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything we did was done without understanding that it could be a problem. Truly, what damaging things have we done other than being ignorant to the fact that we should use different IP addresses. The challenge for us is that we receive internet from our condo association IP and therefore there are many users using this IP address. We have no control over it. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. I do not understand why I am being punished for something I was unaware of. Please help me to understand. Roz Lipchitz (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please find another venue to grind your axe with Paul Barresi. Any further disruption from "new" accounts or IPs on the article will be blocked on site.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been disruptive! The Paul Barresi article is semi-protected so new accounts or new IP's cannot edit anyhow. I do not understand why I am being attacked. There are serious problems with the article and all I have done is point them out. I never could edit the actual article due to its semi-protection or else I would have made the changes and all would be fine.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

You're so obvously a sockpuppet of a long-blocked user, continuing doing the same thing. Max Semenik (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2015 (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.

Anything that I did wrong was done in ignorance. The discussion here has made it clear what Wikipedia does not want me to do. I have learned and will be respectful. Roz Lipchitz (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet; I am a living breathing human being!