User talk:Wickedgoodpoet

My first attempt at using Wikipedia to make sure an entry was vetted by an expert in the field, and an admin with absolutely no expertise in the area blocked me. Fallacy of reasoning: scanty evidence (Wickedgoodpoet (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Case in point: Entry for Sandra Benitez. Does not meet the following criteria, yet the entry is active: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. No. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No. (Wickedgoodpoet (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

You are welcome to make an unblock appeal here, as I have said at the page which you edited as an IP. And I will not, having been previously involved, make a determination should you do so. But given that it is totally obvious that you have previous experience in editing here, be it with an account or as an IP, you will need to explain your editing behavior, or your miraculously acquired editing skills. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm positive there is a way for you to check to see that it was, indeed, my first time. (Wickedgoodpoet (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

IMO this editor did not demonstrate any particular editing skill. Rather, I see intelligence, a willingness to learn, enthusiasm. With this in mind, I'll post a further comment below to explain more about the sock problem and how to resolve a block. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm assuming you came to Wikipedia in order to defend Laura McCullough's article. Because it looked like you were recruited to comment, and because your comments were similar to other "Keep" comments, you have been blocked as a "sockpuppet". That is, because it looks like you are the same person using multiple accounts. If this is the case, then the block is proper. But if you are a different person, then we'd like to have you contributing to Wikipedia. To request an "unblock", paste the following template onto this page in a new section. {{unblock}} (click the link to see what it looks like and how to use it). You must state that you have not edited under any other username. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have never edited under my name or anyone else's name. I leave a comment in the discussion of Laura McCullough's entry because there was a message at the top stating to please leave comments. So, I did. After I left the comment, I thought, "Maybe Wikipedia does need folks to help edit poetry." It's really okay if I continue to be blocked, but I do not agree with the decision. I understand what the "charge" is, but seeing as how I have only had the chance to edit one time there is no logical way, no way, in fact, of determining whether or not that is my only edit attempt. See the logic here? ~~strike~~ I had no idea that open discussion, freedom of speech, on a topic was against Wikipedia policy.Wickedgoodpoet (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC) wickedgoodpoet[reply]

Decline reason:

Either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Either way, WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:14, 18 August 2014 (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.

Wicked, your request was a good one until you added the last line. It implies that WP does not have open discussion and freedom of speech. It really does. (Indeed, we often tolerate too much.) But there are editor behavior issues (such as using multiple accounts), civility issues (such as grossly offensive comments), defamation issues (such as libel), and off-topic issues (such as soapboxing for ones's own cause) that keep some discussions and speech off-limits. If you would, please ~~strike~~ the last sentence. Do so by using the <s>strike</s> wiki markup. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand code, but I tried to insert it. Wickedgoodpoet

You almost got it. Try again. Put the "<s>" at the beginning of the sentence and the "</s>" at the end. Or highlight the sentence with your mouse and then click the Wiki markup symbol at the bottom of your editing window. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]