User talk:EasyTherePilgrim

Welcome![edit]

Hello, EasyTherePilgrim, 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:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ish dar ian 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Aquaman, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ish dar ian 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Aquaman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ish dar ian 07:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	They didn't have tigers in the kitten menu so you get this one instead... — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lion vs. Tiger[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Lion vs. Tiger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ProtossPylon 06:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request not to edit the article: this is not how Wikipedia works. You have the ability to edit pages offline in a text editor or in your own personal sandbox before posting them as an article. A "week or two" is too long to keep a page lacking almost any information which is ostensibly an encyclopedia article. ProtossPylon 06:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lion vs. Tiger[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DMacks (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply no alternative to having a discussion on the talkpage of the existing article and coming to WP:CONSENSUS based on reliable sources for altering its content. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for undeletion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Lion vs. Tiger. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Golden_Prime, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Flat Out let's discuss it 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Let me say flat-out 100% that I never used any account other than this one. This all stems from yesterday and the night before, when I attempted to edit the 'Tiger versus Lion' Wikipedia page. It is 100% pro tiger, and tiger fans will retaliate apparently. Not only was I reverted immediately...but now I see that my other Wikipedia edits from the past, on other topics, are being reverted. Though I did nothing wrong, I greatly regret ever trying to do anything regarding the whole Lion/Tiger thing, because it's not worth the hassle. But I absolutely did nothing unethical like using a multiple accounts. It simply appears to be retaliation for daring to post pro-lion stuff (to balance the pro-tiger stuff). I use only one computer, a laptop in Acapulco.EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the guy who reverted my other edit on the 'Aquaman' page is called 'Pinkbeast' on here. Could be a coincidence, but the timing makes me wonder. The guy who appears to be monitoring the 'Aquaman' page put back some of my content.EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flat Out, I see you left me a message about some revision or something. I guess I don't know what I'm being accused of. If it's logging in with different usernames, I strongly deny that. But I did try start to create a 'Lion vs. Tiger' page, and it was quickly shut down before I even submitted it. I'm fairly new to this, so I might have been a little sloppy on a few things. But I did nothing wrong as far as deception.EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EasyTherePilgrim If I have made a mistake I'm sorry, but you need to reply here to make your case. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?[edit]

You in a heap o' trouble now, boy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Golden Prime (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 4 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I strongly deny that I have 2 accounts. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm still figuring things out. But the only evidence I've seen against me is that this other guy, Golden Prime, tried to edit the 'Tiger versus Lion' page at the same time I did, with a Ken Spiro quote. Let me guess, he did it after I did. Because if you look at the history of this page...quite frankly to get the truth, the admins need to look at this page and see if it's fair. 100% of the information favors the tiger. And all the footnotes lead to nowhere. And every time a lion supporter tries to edit, he gets reverted. So it should be of no real surprise that when a fellow lion supporter sees me getting reverted, as well as attacked, he tries to jump in. Either that or the tiger supporters are using this Golden Prime account to set me up for a ban. If you know anything about the whole 'lion vs. tiger' thing, it's that people take sides. But I had no idea all this would happen. This is outrageous quite frankly, with all due respect. I am willing to give you my IP address - how hard could that be, I'm in Acapulco! Plus WHY would I try to edit with another account IMMEDIATELY after getting reverted??? I can hardly keep up with all this hassle, let alone try to use another account to go through all this again. If I got reverted once, obviously I'd get reverted twice. Makes no logical sense why I would try a 2nd account SO SOON. Lastly, though Ken Spiro is pretty obscure, he is a popular quote for lion fans. If you do a Google search on 'lion vs. tiger ancient Rome', you will find message boards with the Ken Spiro quote all over it. That's how I found it. So it's not surprising at all that someone else would try to use it. There is ZERO real evidence from ancient Rome other than a poet named Martial...so pulling out the Spiro quote is not surprising, as there's not much else to go by. But it's a lot better than the current footnotes on the page. Seriously, they lead NOWHERE. I realize that normally this isn't the place to discuss content...but I've NEVER seen a Wikipedia page like this. The admins need to clean it up, please! Thank you.EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. As soon as I was reverted when trying to edit 'Tiger versus Lion', I checked the history page. It was totally 100% clear that there was NO WAY I'd be able to edit this page. So as you can see, I tried to start my own page, 'Lion vs. Tiger'. While I was still drafting it (before I tried to submit), I found out that POV's or competing pages are not allowed. I talked to the online-help admins, and found out some details on all this. Like I say, I'm still new to all this. That's cool. But my point is this. If I was working on a different alternate page, isn't that pretty clear evidence that I wasn't still trying to edit the 'Tiger versus Lion' page? Believe me, I gave up on that quick. It would be totally 100% useless and a big hassle and waste of time for me to use another account and continue trying to edit. -thanks for reading EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT - behavioural evidence is enough that there's no need for actual sockpuppetry to consider this block valid. Add to that the violation of no personal attacks below, and that adds up to unacceptable behaviour overall. This lion/tiger thing is one of the lamest things; ever. Starting a content fork is even more lame, and quite clearly an inappropriate way to resolve a content issue - and that type of behaviour is something that we need to protect the project from D P 14:21, 9 February 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.

Non-admin comment I really think the behavioral evidence here is weaker than it was made to sound on the SPI page. The editors who chimed in there really didn't take into account that this editor can spell and write a coherent sentence but the other one could not. It might be worth running a checkuser just to be sure, because EasyTherePilgrim seems to me to have potential to be a productive editor.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Alf.laylah.wa.laylah I disagree. Both users show the same pattern of citing invalid sources like forum posts/fictions/blogs/cherry picked statements while accusing the valid and reliable sources of the article of being invalid. This is a very bizarre belief that I think no other user would share the same thought, and this has been raised and explained to them by different administrators (not just by contributors) not fewer than a dozen times. And apart from the Ken Spiro citation/edit warring similarities mentioned in investigation, the above appeal clearly show that he assumes other contributors are tiger fans like Golden Prime assumed us in the first place AND they both treat wikipedia as a forum to force their thoughts by taking extreme actions like edit warring / escalating to admin noticeboards / creating article doppelgangers without any discussion - another big similarity between the two accounts. I am a leo born and I have been a lion fan since I was kid but I have been trying to be neutral when editing the article. The article has been edited by many other contributors and remained more or less the same for 4 years. My opinion is that editors assuming bad faith in the first place (i.e. assuming all contributors are tiger fans) and take sides while editing (he claims he writes from a lion fan's POV) can hardly become a productive editor. BigCat82 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah here - this clearly isn't Golden Prime. It might possibly be meatpuppetry though - another user editing on Golden Prime's behalf. Sadly though, it seems that EasyTherePilgrim may be correct in that other 'Tiger fans' have used the cherry-picked quote from Ken Spiro as 'evidence' in this facile argument. Frankly though, I'm of the opinion that none of this is of any legitimate interest to Wikipedia: any claims that this subject is notable seem to me to be on very shaky ground, and the appropriate solution to all this would be to delete the article entirely. If people want to argue about this nonsense, they can do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, in my honest opinion, BigCat82 is being dishonest in everything he says. I will leave it at that. For now, please run an IP address check on me. I'm currently living in Acapulco. Later, after this appeal is over, I hope the admins look into the content of the 'Tiger versus Lion' page. I realize that normally, 99.9% of the time, content is a not the issue. But in this case it actually is. It will show such an extreme and obvious bias...so much so that it provides a motive for the false attacks against me and other "lion fans". EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may only have 1 active unblock D P 14:17, 9 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

So let me get this straight, as I'm new to all this. I was blocked, and the reason given was that I was accused of having 2 accounts. I'm asked to defend myself of this charge. I do so, strongly denying the charge, and basically proving it. Then my appeal is denied, with the reason given "Well, it doesn't matter anyway whether you have 2 accounts or not. You did a personal attack on your accusers." Really?? When you defend yourself, isn't it alright to give a possible motive for why you've been falsely accused? I guess not; I guess that's a 'personal attack'. And I guess right now I'm considered to be attacking Wikipedia. Geez, everyone feels attacked in their minds. But I'm the only one who was ACTUALLY attacked. EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I'm asked to defend myself of this charge. I do so, strongly denying the charge, and basically proving it." Well, OK, if you do say so yourself (and I know what you meant, but that phrasing is self-contradictory). However, while a number of other editors are not sure of the sockpuppetry charges, it is perfectly alright for an admin reviewing an unblock to cite other reasons for the block if s/he finds them in the review process, even where the stated reason(s) for the block are invalid. So, too, your conduct during the process of requesting an unblock can defeat a case that you were wrongly blocked in the first place. In this case ... "Really?? When you defend yourself, isn't it alright to give a possible motive for why you've been falsely accused?" Uh, no, not necessarily. Not if WP:AGF (see below) means anything to you. Not if WP:NOTTHEM means anything at all. And lastly, opening a second unblock request before the first one is answered looks impatient and tends to be prejudicial to any favorable outcome of the request. I strongly suggest you really think about how you're coming across to other people here, people who would be in a position to judge whether you have what it takes in the long term to work as part of a collaborative online editorial team, before you open another request. If it's in any way similar to the ones you have posted to this point, I would if I were the reviewing admin revoke your talk page access. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 12 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Also, I didn't attack anyone. I was very respectful. I said, very respectfully, that I believed my accuser (BigCat82) was being dishonest. Why is that considered to be an attack...when the admin who denied my appeal is allowed to say that my wanting to edit that page was the "lamest thing ever"? As for wanting to start a content-fork...I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that. I went to a the help-chat and got clarification on what constituted a fork and what didn't. Sometimes it's not all that clear. Like why 'Tiger versus Lion' is even a topic to begin with is actually even dumb to me. Anyway I immediately stopped what I was doing. But how I can get banned...I just don't get it. I successfully defended myself from the false charge. And now the charge is changed. You shouldn't be allowed to change the charge without letting me re-defend myself. EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

" I said, very respectfully, that I believed my accuser (BigCat82) was being dishonest." I honestly don't know that you can "respectfully" accuse someone of dishonesty—it's the rhetorical equivalent of squaring the circle, as far as I'm concerned. Saying it to begin with suggests that you have difficulties assuming good faith; compounding by seriously suggesting that you were doing so with the utmost respect all but proves that. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 12 February 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.

Non-admin comment Apart from your edit warring engagement and your apparent meat/sock puppetry violations, your respectful ways to the admin who kindly explained to you the reasons for the deletion of your intentionally created tiger/lion page fork were calling him/her a jerk [like here] AND starting another identical page fork to push your invalid cherry picked statements and sources from fan site posts, while kept falsely accusing ALL the reliable sources of articles of being invalid ("leading to nowhere") like here and here. Also NONE of your numerous main edits were accepted and constructive so far - all appeared to me that you are probably not here to build an encyclopedia WP:HERE. BigCat82 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment Can't you guys use checkuser to get a handle on what's going on? I really don't think the behavioral evidence is very strong here, and this user really seems to have some potential as an editor.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running checkuser as explained by DangerousPanda is not necessary as WP:MEAT isn't allowed as well. BigCat82 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not perfect. I was surprised when my page I just started was deleted, so I said "hey some jerk deleted my page". Poor choice of words, and I apologize for that. But I didn't call someone a jerk to their face or anything. I just didn't know what happened. Other than that, I've been totally respectful, even in the face of false accusations. Wikipedia is a little complicated to navigate, and a guy doesn't know all the rules before he starts. But I learn quickly. In the last 2 weeks I've learned a lot, too much LOL...but I won't be making any more mistakes (content fork, attempting to edit certain things). EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How many times do you need to be told to have only one unblcok request at a time? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:42, 13 March 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.

Non-admin comment Please also note that WP:MEAT isn't allowed as well, and I have to emphasize that your numerous comments on the verified reliable sources like "Not a single one of them (reliable sources) even goes to a link that has any relevance whatsoever" - your future edits based on this bizarre understanding and definition of citation will only be disruptive in nature like all your previous main edits were (getting reverted by others), and unable to work with other contributors. BigCat82 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that BigCat82 and I can not come to an understanding of any kind. Not even close. I disagree with what he says, and I deny all his categorizations of me. My responding will only further muddy the waters and will be unproductive. So to repeat, I will not be responding to BigCat82 from here on out, no matter what he says about me. EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you were already advised, you may ONLY have 1 unblock request open at a time, Please do not use unblock requests to simply make comments D P 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EasyTherePilgrim I am not asking you to comment on me but your own comments and actions. You have been falsely accusing the existing reliable sources of being invalid to support all your disruptive editing and inappropriate actions like starting content forks, edit warring etc and this was the primary reason why you were suspected sockpuppetry by reviewer User:Flat Out. For examples your edits on articles like Aquaman, Tiger vs Lion and the content forks, were based on your belief that not a single one of them (reliable sources) was valid and thus you deleted many existing valid contents while adding invalid contents based on fan site posts, fan made videos, cherry picked words, etc. Perhaps you have been denying what you have done here so as to get pass the block, just like your denial of personal attacks until we quoted your disrespectful statements. You may choose to continue to deny what you have done but mind you - all your actions have clear records here. Unless you know what's so wrong with your edits, all your future edits will just be as disruptive as all your previous ones and will just be reverted - if you appeal for the unblock with no intention to collaborate with other editors and to make constructive edits (which is quite obvious to me), I recommend administrators take this into serious consideration when reviewing your meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry block. BigCat82 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I notice that BigCat82 is trying to get more users banned. First me, then Golden Prime, and now Fightcats. Apparently anyone who posts anything pro-lion. He's trying to say we're all the same person, which not true. I wish the admins would run an IP check on me to prove I'm telling the truth. Why should I have to keep biting my tongue and being respectful toward him? BigCat82 is a liar, and his 'Tiger versus Lion' page he's protecting is 100% pro-tiger anti-lion propaganda. Others have come to my defense, saying it's obvious that the writing style of me and Golden Prime is nothing alike. If there's a similarity in content, it's because there's a very limited amount of quotes and incidents that we can reference, and we find these same references by a quick internet search and by going on message boards. Yes, the same quotes/references. Lastly, I'm tired of being accused of not working well with others. How would you like it if someone smeared you, and then you saw him smearing others also? EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If the only issue were sockpuppetry, I would certainly be accepting your unblock request, as it doesn't look remotely as though you are the same person as Golden Prime. If the only issue were meatpuppetry, then I would have to think very hard about it. However, you have made this an easy decision by persistently showing that you are not here in a cooperative spirit. You have shown that in numerous ways, the latest being an unblock request which consists largely of attacks on another editor, including calling him or her a liar. Any request for an unblock request of your account will be assessed on the basis of a review of your editing, and attacking another editor is at best irrelevant and at worst, as in this case, counterproductive, as it is further confirmation of your unwillingness or inability to fit into a collaborative environment. And a piece of advice: if you make another unblock request, make sure that it follows the advice in the guide to appealing blocks, as one more request that doesn't is very likely to lead to loss of talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:53, 13 March 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.

(non-admin here) Didn't someone already tell you not to have multiple unblock requests open at the same time? If you'd like to get unblocked, maybe you should follow people's advice? Cathfolant (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, this is getting silly. It's been obvious from the beginning that this user is not Golden Prime, and yet the reason he was originally indeffed rather than given a day or a week for behavioral problems is because some overzealous sock-sniffers decided he was Golden Prime. Now you quite sensibly state that he's not GP, but that he can't be unblocked because he won't stop flipping out and make a GAB compliant request. Think how you'd feel, though, in his situation. It's got to be quite disconcerting. Perhaps it would be good to pretend that his original block was just however long it would have been for edit-warring, assume it'd be over now, unblock him, and see what happens. I really think he has the potential to be a productive editor given my interactions with him before this fiasco.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have some good points there, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, but I am still unhappy about the very real possibility of meatpuppetry. I have decided to compromise, EasyTherePilgrim, by limiting the block to another 48 hours from now. Please bear in mind, though, that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and unless you can edit collaboratively you will be likely to be blocked again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good compromise. And, EasyTherePilgrim, maybe you should consider doing yourself and everyone else a favor and just staying away from BigCat82 on a voluntary basis for a good long time. There are plenty of articles to edit around here, and continuing to mess around with the Liger/Tion affair would just be asking for trouble, I think.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Agree with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Best to stay away from the Lion vs Tiger article, which frankly I can see little justification for anyway, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'm looking into this further at the moment, and will probably be nominating it for deletion as unencyclopaedic speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lion vs. Tiger[edit]

Hello EasyTherePilgrim. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Lion vs. Tiger".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lion vs. Tiger}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]