User talk:TheAmazingCoffeeMan

Clarification

This account was created for the purpose of appealing the block of the user account GageCSayre, which is also owned by me. I also created this account because I have long since forgotten the password and email address, if the latter is applicable, for the account despite still having talk page access, and am clarifying my transparency in using this account. I understand that alternative accounts used to appeal blocks on inaccessible accounts is permissible according to Wikipedia's policy. TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Nearly two weeks ago, I posted a clarification on the talk page for this account stating I created the account to appeal the block for the user account GageCSayre (which I also own). I have yet to receive a response. What might be the cause of that? TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingCoffeeMan: Probably because nobody was watching the talk page of a new user account that hadn't done anything to attract attention yet. Please read the guidelines and procedures at Appealing a block and Guide to appealing blocks. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh: I understand now. I also want to clarify I had read both pages before creating my user talk page, which I did so with clarification for the purpose of creation of the account (namely appealing a block on my blocked account because I have long since forgotten the password). TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingCoffeeMan: I don't see a formal unblock request either here or on User talk:GageCSayre, which is what needs to happen in order for an administrator to know that you have requested an appeal. (Unless you have already submitted a request via UTRS.) In any case, please remember that we are all volunteers and you will have to be patient. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh: Before I created this account, I submitted a request via UTRS, which got rejected. The reason given was because talk page access for the user account GageCSayre is still available. Since I'll probably use this account to appeal the block, will it be okay for me to go ahead and make a formal block request while specifying I'm the owner of both this account and GageCSayre? TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. This is well outside my territory, then. Can you reply through the UTRS system and point to your comments here? And do keep in mind that everyone here is a volunteer (I don't know what a normal response time would be for UTRS). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh: After the appeal was declined, it was closed, meaning I can't make any replies or further comments. TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingCoffeeMan: I asked for advice from other editors at § Query re possible clean start for a blocked user who hasn't edited in 14 years— ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Help:I have been blocked, then make an unblock request. Use {{unblock}}. Don't edit outside of your talk page until the block is appealed. That would be block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I actually read both pages before I created my user talk page. Since I have done so, should I go ahead and make a formal unblock request on this talk page or the old account's talk page? TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it on this page. It would be confusing if you did it on the other one. Just be honest, don't use a chat bot, and keep the word count sensible (like, less than 250 words, say). Then you'll probably get a quick "appeal accepted" message. One has to assume that you were a child back then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Okay, thanks. I'll keep all that in mind. TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the optimal way to go about this, but just to put the matter to rest I have unblocked your original account on the assumpotion that you are not going through all this just to introduce deliberate errors and get blocked again. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am using this account to appeal the block on my account GageCSayre because I have long since forgotten the password and email address, if I even ever used an email address. Sometime after the account got blocked for vandalism, I created the sock puppet account RoyalRumble24 to not only continue vandalizing Wikipedia (mostly by falsifying information on articles), but also create pages deemed inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia; almost 4 years after the aforementioned sock puppet was blocked, I created the account Cletus28, which I used to constructively contribute. I understand that despite my edits made with the account Cletus28 helping improve Wikipedia, it was still wrong for me to create the account during an active block. I have also long realized vandalism not only wastes the time of people wanting to contribute constructively, but can also confuse and mislead readers. I have also gained a better understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy and policy on reliable sources. I have come to feel remorse for my actions, and I take full responsibility for them and the consequences thereof.

Accept reason:

Welcome back, and happy editing! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're not quite done here yet.

It has been brought up on my talk page that one of the accounts you say was yours, RoyalRumble24, is tagged as a confirmed sock of a long-inactive long term abuse account, and that this implies you were actually the operator of somewhere between twenty -five and fifty other accounts, and therefore I may have exceeded my authority as an admin in clearing a path for your return.

I have to admit this is a fair concern, even given that the abuse ended quite some time ago. So, I guess the main question here is, are you in fact the same person who operated the Alexcas11 account and all those others? (It's not neccesarily a dealbreaker if you were, but it would require a bit more discussion to see if there is a consensus that leaving you iunblocked is ok.) Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways: I looked through the sock puppet investigations archive for Alexcas11, and I read some about the editing patterns of the sock puppet accounts alongside the IP addresses used, and I can say those accounts (besides RoyalRumble24) don't belong to me. I also looked at the IP addresses used, and I can safely say none of them track to my location (I live in the United States, but that's as specific as I'll get). Moreover, the account Alexcas11 and its sock puppets appear to have been active and subsequently blocked before I even started vandalizing Wikipedia and got blocked for it. Additionally, the way I went about vandalizing articles mostly involved falsifying dates, and the only article about a made-up topic I ever created was an imagined 2011 remake of Home Alone. All the other articles deemed inappropriate for inclusion I wrote as RoyalRumble24 were about people deemed ineligible for Wikipedia's notability criteria. TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant to follow up here, my apologies. After this reply I took the matter back to the admin noticeboard, where nobody expressed any serious concerns[1], so I think we can call this

Resolved

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways: That sounds good; moreover, even if the aforementioned IP addresses were linked to the accounts I formerly used to vandalize, the location of the IP addresses has long since changed. TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources for Articles on Days

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm wanting to add the late British philosopher Antony Flew to the deaths section on the April 8 article, and I know from reading policies reliable sources must be cited. Would a New York Times article published just over a week after Flew's death be acceptable? TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is generally considered reliable. I'd suggest linking to the article here so that we can evaluate the specific article as well. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyComputers: Okay, here's the link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks totally fine to me. By the way, there's a list of well-known sources that you can consult to see the current consensus on sources' reliability. Unless you're editing in a contentious topic area, if the source is reliable then I would just follow the bold, revert, discuss process -- make your edit, and if you get reverted then you can discuss the edit on the article's talk page.

Also, just FYI, usernames are case sensitive, so the ping didn't alert me (the second C in my username is lowercase). --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You're right to want to use a published, reliable source. But in this case, why not use the same source - which is not behind a paywall - as used in the Antony Flew article? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

Using a freely available online source should generally be preferred. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]