ShadowReflection

Welcome to Wikipedia from Sabrebd

Hi, ShadowReflection. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! SabreBD (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Adolescence article, and the Child article

Hello, ShadowReflection. I appreciate your help with the Adolescence article, but defining it as only being between puberty and legal adulthood is not exactly true. There were sources to back this up in the article, and they are back now with my slight revert of your addition. As I stated in one of my edit summaries, "People who go through precocious puberty, for example, are not usually defined as adolescents. And a 14-year-old boy who has not hit puberty is still called an adolescent." I left in your additions, though; I just tweaked them, and added back the precocious puberty/prolonged adolescence information.

As for the Child article, the lead being defined as it is was discussed on the talk page. You are more than welcome to weigh in on that there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your edits are remarkable for a person beginning to edit Wikipedia; may I ask you whether you have previously edited Wikipedia with another account? Regards,  Sandstein  19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I just started editing Wikipedia. I was reading the banning policy and it just didn't appear to make sense. But it seems now I have to gain consensus on the talk page since I have been reverted. ShadowReflection (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you just started editing Wikipedia, might I suggest you propose changes to core policies on the talk page first, before implementing them? Thanks, –xeno^talk 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and then to discuss on the talk pages after being reverted. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That advice is tempered when applying it to core policies; see Wikipedia:BOLD#Wikipedia namespace. –xeno^talk 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But if I don't get a response within a week, can I remove the warning? Silence consensus would apply then. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What warning? –xeno^talk 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry policy warns users to not sockpuppet. It’s a warning. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not unless consensus supports your version. –xeno^talk 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked this newly created account because I am confident, from looking at its contributions (about ten edits to get autoconfirmed, then focusing exclusively on sockpuppetry-related policy pages) that it is an alternate account of an experienced user who wants to evade scrutiny or a block or ban. If you wish to appeal this block, you will find instructions for doing so at WP:GAB.  Sandstein  16:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This account is not autoconfirmed. I need to wait 3 more days for that to happen. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not abusing multiple accounts. There is no evidence. Blocking editors when users are under pressure is not right.

Decline reason:

Your behavior raises several red flags. I find it hard to believe that a brand-new account could find all of the pages you edited and comment with obvious knowledge of the way Wikipedia works. This, in conjunction with Sandstein's notes above, lead me to the conclusion that this either not your main account or you are evading a block. TNXMan 16:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

---

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 am not evading any block. Can't you give me another chance? What did I do wrong? I discussed on the talk page when I disagreed. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I like to apologize for my contentious edits. I got on the wrong foot and got carried away. If you can give me another chance, I would be grateful. Or you can tell me how long I should wait to make another appeal to be unblocked. I like to come back in the future.

Decline reason:

Your behavior makes it clear that you are as described above. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

If you want to come back, do so under your original account; or otherwise provide some credible explanation as to why a user who says they just started editing Wikipedia two days ago has taken such a strident interest in our sock puppetry policies. –xeno^talk 17:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelpme}}

Well I have been reading Wikipedia for years. I'm sorry for taking too much interest in the policies that it appears that I am someone's sockpuppet. I promise I won't do it again if you unblock me. Or at least tell me how long I should wait for the next appeal. ShadowReflection (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why you are blocked I do not understand. what contributions have you made that led to any evidence? and also, there is a clean slate policy which states that if you do have an old account on WP as an experienced user you can make a new one with a clean slate. More is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#CLEANSTART --AntsmaPantsma454545 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I can tell you that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It is very obvious that this is a sock.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Adminhelpme}} is not appropriate; you had 2 unblock requests declined, and they've explained the concerns and what would be needed - but you would need to do that as an unblock request.  Chzz  ►  21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack!. I'm not an administrator, but I agree with this block. It is a reasonable conclusion that this account is a sock puppet account. Your account was created yesterday, then you made 13 edits to the Wikispace, then targeted WP:BAN and WP:SOCK? Still, it's being looked in to. --ANowlin: talk 21:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)