User talk:BigPaw

Welcome!

Hello, BigPaw! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Matthew R Dunn (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for as based on your contribution history, it appears that you are the latest account of Top Gun (talk · contribs). I note in particular your combination of edits to science fiction articles early in your editing history followed by long-running history of editing the casualty figures in articles on recent and ongoing warfare, including many of the articles on casualties Top Gun started and/or focused on. This is characteristic of many other Top Gun sockpuppet accounts (as examples, LiquidOcelot24 (talk · contribs) and UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs)). In terms of your editing of casualty figures, I note in particular that you've been continuing the Top Gun habit of making up casualty figures based on news reports in the article on the casualties of a war and then adding this figure to the main article on the war (for instance, [1] followed by [2]).. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

First of, I didn't make up any casualty figures. The edit you pointed out [3] was properly sourced in the main table of the article with a reference from a proper link. Second, if you would check my editing history on that article you would see I removed most of the large link farm that this user Top Gun put in the article which was totally un-necessary. Which I also did over at the Taliban fatality reports where an unknown user was constantly adding up individual daily casualty figures which are not required or wanted on Wikipedia if we have at our disposal yearly and monthly tolls. Third, as for my edit [4] in the main article on the war, I read the Wikipedia guideline on using Wikipedia articles as sources more closely and read that Wikipedia doesn't allow its own articles to be used as sources. So I admit I made a mistake on that part and appologies. Fourth, yes I made only benign edits after I started editing on Wikipedia once in a while a few every week, but I found this article and decided to edit it once or twice every month or so since it was in need of it and un-attented. So I humbly request an un-block and I promise that in the future I will not use Wikipedia articles as sources. Thank you for your reply in advance. BigPaw (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following the unfriendly discussion on Nick-D's part bellow (who didn't assume any good faith) I find myself insulted and not wanting to be unblocked if I am to be attacked by such a kind of an administrator. In that case, I re-tract my appeal to be unblocked because I don't want to be in such a hostile atmosphere. If some other reasonable administrator thinks I should be unblocked fine, but I won't be coming to Wikipedia to edit again. BigPaw (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User indicated below (4:43 2 December 2011) that they do not wish to return to Wikipedia, so no need for them to be unblocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2011 (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.

While another admin will review this request, I'm not buying it at all. The articles you focused on and your editing pattern in them are basically the same as the other Top Gun socks. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw from his editing history Top Gun focused on listing individual reports of deaths. I say again, that I myself have removed most of his lists of individual deaths because they could have been in violation of the rules on OR and maybe Synthesis. And I myself have focused more on properly sourced yearly and monthly totals. I can't see how those can be the same patterns. BigPaw (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not true - while you trimmed some of the lists at the start of this account's editing history (much as other Top Gun socks have voted to delete Top Gun articles in AfD discussions), you've continued to make up figures of total casualties based on individual news stories and reports from various NGOs and government bodies. The only difference is that you've switched to using stories which cover periods rather than individual incidents and have updated the articles less frequently. This is entirely in line with your post here (reviewing admin: use Google translate to translate this from Croatian to English and see also [5]) in which you identified this as a strategy to avoid being caught. The basic methodology of making up total casualty figures from different sources which probably aren't comparable with each other then adding this to other articles is identical to those of the various Top Gun accounts, and the specific articles focused on are exactly the same as the other Top Gun socks. As just some examples (in no particular order): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [[16]], [17], [18]. Nick-D (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actualy have no comment on my edits that you listed since all of them are properly sourced edits. The casualty figures are not made up, they are appropriately sourced and your reasoning is not understandable and saying the monthly tolls aren't comparable with each other is a bit of POV on your part. My edits show numbers of security forces killed in different periods of time. Isn't that the point of the article? You telling me anyone who edits the article is automatically Top Gun and therefore not allowed to edit? That's a bit disruptive for Wikipedians if I could point out. As for those comments in Croatian or whatever, I have no idea what that is since it was made by an anonymous editor and don't know how it links to me at all. Also, I might say that your behavior seems obsessive, a bit paranoid, borderline stalking, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. And if I am to be pursued by such a kind of an administrator, after just trying to improve those Wikipedia articles (with proper sources and nice editing), than I don't even wan't to be unblocked because I find that behavior offensive and don't want to continue editing at all. If a reasonable administrator unblocks me fine, otherwise I don't care. BigPaw (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, alright, I have cooled down a bit, I apologize for some of my comments, which could be regarded as uncivilised, on your behavior however I still felt insulted and as such I am not returning to Wikipedia. I just felt I had to come back and apologize for some possible rude behavior on my part, even though you made some hostile comments towards me also. Hope you have a nice life. Goodbye. BigPaw (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]