User talk:Mycocktaildress

Welcome!

Hello, Mycocktaildress, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Govindaharihari (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Leonard Cohen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Leonard Cohen. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm HickoryOughtShirt?4. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Your reason here }. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am actually a direct source in this case, this particular under cover copper pretended to be one of my best friends for 8 years, during that time, he spied on me and many of my friends, he also collected information about me that was not relevant to what he was doing such as me sexuality and gender presentation. I have absolutely no idea who the person who has blocked me is, but I know what my relationship with Mark Kennedy is and any one who thinks I am being a vandal without being someone who was there well they can ....~~~~

Decline reason:

This does not address your inappropriate edits; as such, I am declining your request. If you are unable to edit the article without vandalizing it with your viewpoint, you should stay away from that subject matter and find a more appropriate venue to express your views. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2020 (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.

It seems I can not even complain about your blocking. As you have blocked me editing at all ,so this is the only place I can say...I have said nothing a reasonable person would not say who was spied on by the state. Anyone who wishes to censor my complaining about the states behaviour supports the states behaviour and therefore think it is OK to spy one perople who are engaged in trying to make the world a better place . And :HickoryOughtShirt?4 I hold you in that regard

Hours later and I'm still blocked by you:HickoryOughtShirt?4, can I ask you one question, do you think it is ok for the state to spy on people? Infiltrate their lives, become their best friends, sleep with people, whilst under cover? If so that is your call, but know this, you are scum, if not then why are you protecting the state in this way?

I am a volunteer on the internet, don't try to make me into something I'm not. You were vandalizing an article and I stopped you. That's all that happened. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not vandalising anything HickoryOughtShirt?4, I was editing it, you made a choice, if you know nothing about the case in question do not interfere.Mycocktaildress (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, since you rejected their unblock request you may wish to know that given their IDHT behaviour, I have indef blocked them. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am here to build an encyclopedia, The entry on Mark Kennedy currently contains references to an interview, who facts are disputed by the people that he spied on. I have therefore provided a referenced source that shows that. The article also does not state that Mark Kennedy formed sexual relationships with women whilst undercover, despite the fact that this has been admmited to by the police, who have apologised for this behaviour and admitted that they's relationships were "abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong". I have provided a referenced link to a respectable news source that states this clearly. Currently the article on Wikipedia is one sided, misses out key information and provides information that was challenged at the time. I have porivded references to all the claims. This is a malicious blockMycocktaildress (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. Please take the time to read WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV. Your block is appropriate and was necessary to protect the project. Your edits would have been only mildly inappropriate in a tabloid, but had no place in an encyclopedia. Yamla (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am here to build an encyclopedia, The entry on Mark Kennedy currently contains references to an interview, who facts are disputed by the people that he spied on. I have therefore provided a referenced source that shows that. The article also does not state that Mark Kennedy formed sexual relationships with women whilst undercover, despite the fact that this has been admmited to by the police, who have apologised for this behaviour and admitted that they's relationships were "abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong". I have provided a referenced link to a respectable news source that states this clearly. Currently the article on Wikipedia is one sided, misses out key information and provides information that was challenged at the time. I have porivded references to all the claims. This is a malicious blockMycocktaildress (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your edits include things along the lines of "absolute scumbag", along with unwarranted attacks on other editors on this talk page, none of which gets covered in your unblock request, I am denying it. As the unblock guide linked to above states, if you don't cover all the reasons you were blocked, then it's very unlikely any appeal will be accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2020 (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.

Calling someone a "scumbag" is unacceptable. I blocked you because your only aim here to further disparage an article on a living person, for whom we have very strict rules on (see WP:BLP). I am uncomfortable unblocking you until you agree to step away from this topic.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that we're clear: you have engaged in significant violations of our biographies of living persons rules, you are (by your own admission) currently involved in a court case with the person whose article you are editing, and in general you appear to be here to "right great wrongs". None of those things are acceptable, and the second one is egregiously inappropriate. Your unblock requests have shown that you either don't know why any of this is problematic or just don't care. This is the end of the line for you. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]