Cedarpointers

i've been "wikiblocked" until December 3!

....but anyway it's flattering to know that one of the administrators on this site thinks that I would be tech-savvy enough to be able to purposefully evade a temporary editing "range-block", here --- especially afterward of my own previously congenial (but obviously not very tech-savvy) interactions with that same moderator. Cedarpointers (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

15:51, 18 November 2020 blocked with an expiration time of 18:29, 3 December 2020 (anon. only) { {rangeblock} }: Long-term disruptive editing

[repeat:"anon only"....which would explain the wiki screen message which instructed me to create an account if I wished to continue my editing-privileges. So, apparently someone needs to modify/deactivate those erroneous wiki screen messages which instruct users to do things that actually instead get them blocked again, or worse: shamed, insulted, accused of lying, AND blocked.] Cedarpointers (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

---

[Day 3 of being re-blocked] I am still quite perplexed as to how I (supposedly) bypassed/evaded a prior range-block by utilizing one of the very same range-i.p.s which were ostensibly blocked. But if perhaps I indeed accomplished such a miraculous evasion....would someone please inform me as to exactly how I accidentally performed it. [Imagine the amazing wiki-powers of someone who actually could purposely accomplish such an evasion! endless!] Cedarpointers (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

---

[Day 4 of being re-blocked] hmmmm....a very surprising (and quite humorous) new occurrence has resulted as a side-effect of my being blocked (....but, more about that, when I see how it unfolds).

But anyway....the main side-effect of range-blocks, is apparently wiki-denoted as "collateral damage". So, (...after I finally figured out how to determine if there was any "collateral damage" with this specific range-block...), yup, there sure has been "collateral damage":

Prior to the time of the range-block, there were potentially approximately a dozen other anonymous contributors using i.p.s within this same range....all of whom, have apparently been "collaterally" blocked for perhaps nearly a month, too. (As to exactly how many of those were mere wiki-vandals, I have not yet determined....but obviously not all anonymous contributors are wiki-vandals...because if they were, then anonymous wiki-editing would surely have already been totally banned, long ago.) And, also, a few registered-users may have additionally suffered that same 'collateral-damage', (...even if they were able to successfully dispute the block...but which, of course, is yet another wiki-hassle...and which also potentially could immediately discourage novice volunteers here, from future wiki-volunteering.) [ Competent 'volunteers' (...unlike the plethora of paid propagandists, here...) will generally tend to become quickly frustrated with volunteering, when lesser-competent volunteers (and/or those paid-propagandists) constantly impede them...obviously.]

But (...back to the range-block topic...)....here is an anomaly, which I have not yet resolved: the original block of this range, occurred during the latter part of October, (I think). The reason for the initial block was attributed to "perpetual pestering", if I recall correctly...of which, admittedly, I am blatantly guilty, and I cannot...and wouldn't ever... deny that fact. (More about that "perpetual pestering" perhaps in a future posting.) However, I haven't been able to locate the wiki-record of that initial block.....instead, only the range-block which occurred on Nov.18.

So, the point being, that I cannot be totally certain whether my blockage was ever intended to include my ability to newly create (and use) my very own registered wiki-account (...which, according to the most-recent blocking-administrator, is supposedly what I nefariously, and also miraculously, accomplished!)....or, instead, if it was merely intended to block my anonymous wiki-editing, (...the same as the Nov.18 range-block, upon which I unfortunately relied as being wiki-gospel).

[Full disclosure: let that be a warning (to future potential wiki-volunteers) not to even bother to attempt to contribute anonymously....because (....and especially due to the daily exponential increase of true wiki-vandals).......eventually, inevitably, you too, will end up being "collateral-damage")! (.. perhaps non-anonymously, either, maybe???)]Cedarpointers (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Well anyway...as you...my many wiki-fans...can obviously see in the other (cautionary) wiki-thread, here:

I am apparently not permitted to "chatter" here (...despite the fact that everything of which I have been "chattering" has been specifically about a topic for which these user-talk pages were ostensibly originally intended? ...i.e. disputing a 'block' of a member-account, and etc.).

No matter, and no worries....because the remainder of my thoughts, will be posted directly to the talk-page of the same author of that cautionary wiki-thread...whose prior kind assistance to me, became the sole impetus which motivated me to return, as a contributor, to this website, (...albeit, what I had already intended to be a very brief return, regardless).

But, because my editing-privileges won't be restored until Dec. 3....therefore, that final (and "external") installment of this wiki-blog, will have to wait until then. So farewell, for now.

p.s., (...and hopefully*), that "final installment", will additionally reveal the other plot-twist which I mentioned above...because it also involves that very same "cautionary" author). [*..unless, of course, now I am permanently and forever blocked, due this proscribed, additional, "chatter". Or, if perhaps instead, I simply decide not to ever return to wiki, in any capacity, again, whatsoever, at all.]Cedarpointers (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop chattering on your talk page

Hi there again, while I think it was wise of you to cut this chatter on your talk page, periodically coming back to tweak the pointless chatter that's was already there, is not constructive, and will very quickly be considered disruptive. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you keep misusing your talk page, your privileges to edit this talk page will be pulled for the remainder of the block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is usual to allow blocked editors access to their talk pages, to allow unblock requests. Since your only use of this talk page during the block has been to post irrelevant chatter, I have removed talk page access for the rest of the duration of the block. (You yourself described what you were doing as "wiki-blogging", but Wikipedia is not a blog hosting service.) JBW (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

reply to both above mssgs: quote, "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages"

repeat: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages" and, once more: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages" [as quoted from the wiki-page WP:NOT ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B10C:F0CE:2090:9C03:CB52:E170 (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, Cedarpointers, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 2600:1009:B10C:F0CE:2090:9C03:CB52:E170 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@theroadislong: no, I am not "operating multiple accounts". (If you had bothered to read my statements in a prior posting, here, you would be very much aware that several OTHER wiki-contributors are apparently utilizing similar i.p.s; and to none of which do I have any affiliation, nor control, nor any control over my own i.p.). But, at this juncture, I can only intrepret your interference in my wiki-contributing, as being for the sole purpose of harrassing me. If you have some sort of personal vandetta against me, please publicly disclose it, here, because I would very much like to know the reason. Otherwise, please stop posting messages to my talk-page. Thank you.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Draft talk:Cedar Point peninsula (Ohio). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you here to work or fight?

Hi there, look, I have to ask, are you here to build an encyclopedia, or are you here to fight with people? I attempted to help you out early on because I felt your frustration that you tried to create a draft, but maybe lacked some of the Wikipedia expertise. But since then you wound up getting blocked for pestering other editors on their talk pages, while blocked you wrote complaint-laden screeds, you're now fighting at Draft talk:Cedar Point peninsula (Ohio)—What are you here to do? You're block's been over for five, six days and you haven't even asked anyone to undelete that draft. If you're here for the sheer exhilaration of fighting with people, that's incompatible with a community editing project.

In the interim, I'm going to undelete the draft so you can focus on that. I also ask that you please read the list at WP:NOTHERE. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

[reiterating my reply to Cyphoidbomb. ...feel free to respond, here, to my below question] Thank you, Cyphoidbomb, for restoring the draft (which you, yourself, had improved dramatically from its initial submission). So thank you. Now, my question is: due to my screen-name, would it be prudent for me to edit the actual draft (which might be perceived as also being biased, precisely due to my screen-name....or, should I instead merely stick with adding suggestions and verifiable sources, onto the talk-page, there? Thanks again.Cedarpointers (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, since you've already asked this on my talk page, I'll move my response to here and delete your query from there. It's best to keep discussions in one place so everybody can keep track of them.

Hi there, an editor can be from somewhere or be interested in something or have an opinion about a subject, and still write about it. So yes, you can edit the article directly, so long as you're maintaining neutrality in the article. "The Cedar Point Peninsula is the most lush, relaxing environment for private meditation or for romantic windswept picnics" would be an example of our fondness and familiarity getting out of control. And if you owned the peninsula, that would be a clear conflict of interest. Another example: a person might have a strong dislike of a political figure, but if they can edit objectively and maintain our neutral point of view, that's where it matters most. Similarly, Theroadislong might have strong opinions about the quality of the article or whether it meets our various notability criteria. That doesn't mean they can't edit, that just means that maybe the two of you need to work more closely together, or maybe you need to work on resolving whatever concerns they have. A person who has created over 100 articles would certainly have a good understanding of community expectations. Hope that helps. If you have other questions, please feel free to ask. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ok thanks(...and sorry for the "wiki game-of-tag"). But in response to why I hadn't directly requested specific restoration of the deleted-draft, I will reiterate that it was because that "peninsula" is technically an island, now, and therefore it seemed premature of me to request the restore, if that entire AFC is mis-identified. Cedarpointers (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk page stuff

Hey there, another piece of advice. Generally speaking, when a conversation is started somewhere, it is best to respond in one place and keep the conversation in one place. I moved a discussion from my talk page back to yours only because it made sense to keep that chain as part of the original discussion, which took place on your talk page.

Copying from one Wikipedia page to another also gets dicey for reasons related to copyright (this pertains mostly to article content), so I'd like to discourage the habit of copying from page to page. Things just get confusing and discussions are duplicated and people might look at the edit history and wonder why you posted a comment that looked like it came from me, blah blah blah. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)