User talk:Aphroditean

Welcome!
Hello, Aphroditean, 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:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 22:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ to . Additionally, he has been editing logged out and not being civil.
 * Exactly where was the person to whom you are referring not civil? Aphroditean (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of checkuser rights
Requesting the attention of the arbitration committee: User:Casliber, User:Callanecc, User:DGG, User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies, User:Euryalus, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Keilana, User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Ks0stm, User:Mkdw, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Opabinia regalis.

From the CheckUser Policy:

''The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects.''


 * I have never vandalised anything, nor disrupted the project, nor do I even comprehend what sockpuppet abuse is and how I might be accused of it.

''The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.''

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no valid reason, seeing as I've only made good edits which improved articles, and which no-one disputed. Aphroditean (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you have written above that you would like to know where. Do I have your permission to reveal your IP to allow admins to see the contribs for themselves? It has such things as you calling an established editor "rv idiot trolling vandal" in an edit summary.
 * You don't have my permission for anything. I did not say such a thing, and if you found an IP address that did, that still obviously did not give you a reason to use your tools on my account. Why did you use your tools on this account? Aphroditean (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just logged out and found that I had made some edits while logged out. See Special:Contributions/2.28.156.23. These are all the edits. Oddly, none of them remotely resemble the one that you want to attribute to me. Aphroditean (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

11:32, 21 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-10)‎ . . Granite State (Breaking Bad) ‎ (→‎Production) (current) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-114)‎ . . Granite State (Breaking Bad) ‎ (→‎Production: highly contrived original research) 11:09, 20 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-1)‎ . . Chromecast ‎ (current) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) 00:10, 20 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-16)‎ . . Claudio Ranieri ‎ (→‎Chelsea) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) 06:44, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (0)‎ . . Spontaneous symmetry breaking ‎ (References go after verifiable facts. Presumably this is where these ones should be) (current) 06:39, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-4)‎ . . Mr. Wrench and Mr. Numbers ‎ (→‎Production) (current) 06:39, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-14)‎ . . Mr. Wrench and Mr. Numbers ‎ (→‎2010–2016: it is not remotely inadvertent) 06:37, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-246)‎ . . The Law of Non-Contradiction ‎ (→‎See also: maybe a place could be found to link this in the article. This link appears like a tacked on irrelevance) 06:35, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-170)‎ . . The Law of Non-Contradiction ‎ (→‎See also: not relevant to this article) 06:28, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist). . (-3)‎ . . Fargo (season 3) ‎


 * I see that you took the time to revert "a picture of a donkey" to "a picture of a donkey (ass)". You didn't think that was making the encyclopaedia better, did you? Aphroditean (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We ask the questions here. You aren't telling the complete truth...not even close. Anyone with CU rights can see the entries for Dec. 8 & Dec. 10 here and discern the IP that I'm talking about.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Next, we won't be dealing with any kind of claims of impropriety and arguments from banned users. Especially not you. It is a waste of time as you don't tell the truth. We just don't let banned users wikilawyer against others when they haven't re-established themselves in the community. From now on, any mass pings will get your talk page access revoked since that is you being disruptive...that counts from now on regardless of what accounts you may be using. Stop being disruptive.
 * Btw, your comment "...nor do I even comprehend what sockpuppet abuse is and how I might be accused of it." indicates that you lack the competence to edit here or you are terribly insincere.
 * I am not disruptive. I make edits which improve the encyclopaedia. You've undone some of those edits, deliberately damaging the encyclopaedia. Clearly, you're more concerned with exercising your "power" here than actually building a quality encyclopaedia. You have not explained why you checked this account. What edits from this account caused you concern? Aphroditean (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. You never answer the questions on socking when asked at your other accounts. Deflection isn't going to happen here. Remember, you don't know what sockpuppetry is therefore you lack the competence to call any checkuser decision in question.

December 2017
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You removed one of my comments before and I ignored it. With the second removal, I have revoked your talk page access. Deflection won't work. This is all about you.