User talk:Perk10

Welcome!

 * }

Time of Postal Police arrival
I moved the Postal Police arrival to 12:30 because that is what was in Dempsey's book. It's not a precise time, simply what the officer remembered. The time wasn't recorded in any notes or documents created on the day the body was found.

To create a Sandbox, just go to User:Perk10/Sandbox and start editing. The name can be anything, but Sandbox is traditional. I would also suggest putting a link to your /Sandbox on your user page. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful instructions.

I thought the time was recorded. Not sure this is the discussion spot but I can also look it up.

Perk10 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know why was this sent to me? I always sign my posts.  Perk10 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Invitation to refactor your comments
Your recent edits, [] and [], [], are moving firmly into personal attacks territory. You are advised to: Asserting motives, casting aspersions, attacking others, whether by name or as a group, will not bring any changes to the article. They can, however, not be tolerated. The article's talk page is there for exactly one thing: to discuss improvements to the article. If you have a different agenda, you may want to reconsider your participation.
 * Cease and desist from that behaviour
 * Refactor the above comments to remove your unsubstantiated and baseless attacks
 * Focus, as you have been invited to, on proposing those additions to bring the article up-to-date, and solely on that.

Contrary to your claims, there is room to propose a better representation of your point of view in the article. That requires but one thing, that you sit down at the negotiation table, propose changes, source them, explain why you believe they are an improvement, and treat other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner when discussing them. The opportunity is yours to take, and I would advise against squandering it in favour of soapboxing, or treating Wikipedia like a battleground. It is entirely your choice to make, though. MLauba (Talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

MoMK talk
B/c you're not logged in.TMCk (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I totally realized that a minute ago! Oops.  Thanks for the info.  Perk10 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * You're welcome and I'll remove my same post I made on your IP page for privacy reasons.TMCk (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can remove the diffs that show your IP if you wish. Ask me on my talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What's a "diff"? Perk10 (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * What's an IP page? I can also look these things up.  Perk10 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10
 * In general, I'm okay with my data as is. But maybe I'm not aware of certain security issues.  Perk10 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * Sorry - I meant that if you wish, I can remove the versions of the page that contain your IP address from the page history so that regular editors can't see it. Your IP address gives an indication aas to your location, and some editors prefer not to release that.  Black Kite (t) (c) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I thought that might be the case. I wouldn't mind it being removed. Is it something I can do so you don't have to? Thanks.  Perk10 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

No, only an admin can do this. I'll place a note on his page to speed things up.TMCk (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much appreciated.  Perk10 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * Your welcome, TMCk (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for off-wiki co-ordinated votestacking and meatpuppetry (see this link - section "Meatpuppetry and votestacking at MfD"). You may be unblocked if you convincingly account for your editing patterns - i.e. 3 months of inactivity after only editing one topic area, followed by a sudden return (along with multiple other editors) to attempt to stack consensus at a deletion discussion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on exactly with my block. Perk10 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10
 * I was accused by a group of admins and editors, who systematically censored an article (an action which has been recently established - per the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk Page), of being a "meat puppet". The accusation and subsequent block was useful in keeping the article to remain as it was (thereby fulfilling by themselves the claim they had against me).  I don't want to publish an "unblock" request because I am concerned that an admin with the goal to protect the article will refuse my request (whether or not that concern is founded).


 * I would be grateful for an objective WP contributor to discuss this with me, such as DreamGuy and/or Jimbo Wales, or any objective admin. I intend no harm to Wikipedia.  I am a thoughtful, articulate person who believes in liberty, sound argument and good logic.  The only goal for the article in question is neutrality.  I was aiming to protect the article from disruption of neutrality, as which it was successfully allowed to persist (i.e. not neutral), until this week.  The same admins who aimed to protect it were the ones who banned anyone who disagreed with them.  This is not intended to point a finger.  It is a fact which could be investigated to establish.  I write with trepidation as I am concerned I will trip a wire and sabotage my honest cause.  I am learning about WP.  I might not know the right things to say that won't cause undue alarm.  The opportunity to discuss this further with an objective admin/person, before any punitive action would be helpful.  My goal is to preserve accuracy of information and sometimes that involves pointing out bias where it exists.  Should I be banned for that?


 * The admin who blocked me has since resigned, as well as a number of other admins who shared his POV.


 * If you'll notice, my focus is the neutrality of the article, not my own account, though I would like my account to be restored. Even this is with the aim of helping Wikipedia.Perk10 (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Moving forward, you must complete the {unblock} request, in the box below, to get your unblock-request queued for consideration by the few remaining admins. Numerous admins have quit handling administrative functions on Wikipedia, because of burnout and various other reasons. So, it will likely take a while for an admin to devote time to researching your case. Meanwhile, edit the section, below, to state the reason to be unblocked. -Wikid77 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How to get unblocked: You must fill in the Template:Unblock in the box below. You were apparently blocked, by an incorrect conclusion of retired admin User:Black_Kite, in thinking that anyone who joined the MfD (of User:PhanuelB/sandbox), after weeks of no edits, must have been part of a WP:MEATPUPPET campaign, rather than returning to Wikipedia for another reason. I have since documented, that I, myself, edited that MfD (during the same suspicious period) because I returned to Wikipedia discussions after the world-wide news of how Amanda Knox's trial will re-examine DNA evidence (world news on December 18-20, 2010). I was not part of an "evil conspiracy" to votestack a WP:MfD discussion, but instead, the whole gang of editors had arrived at about the same time due to re-awakening of interest in Wikipedia's discussions when Knox/Sollecito (in Perugia, Italy) were assigned a new, impartial judge who agreed to the grounds for appealing their initial pending convictions. The rapid gathering of people was not a meat-puppet conspiracy, but rather a re-awakening of interest in WP discussions when Knox/Sollecito were granted a full appeal of the evidence, as announced in worldwide news.

Unblock request #1
Edit this section to revise the details of your unblock request.

Another request to unblock this user

 * Support unblock: I agree with unblocking this user, who was indef-blocked as the first violation, when a 1-month initial block would have seemed more appropriate. Some users fail to understand that blocking is not applied only to a username (to lose the reputation associated with that username) but a block applies to all edit-access, including as IP edits. The blocking admin, User:Black_Kite, resigned from Wikipedia, on 25 January 2011, apparently due to lack of time for personal reasons, so there is no need to bother him further. This User:Perk10 has already explained the timing of edits. Also, the term "votestacking" is rather misleading in a WP:MfD discussion, where votes are not counted, and hence users cannot be expected to abide by illogical things being implied by such misleading terms. I have tried, for months, to improve Wikipedia's policies, but it is extremely difficult to get consensus in some discussions. Anyway, in this case, I recommend to unblock this user soon. -Wikid77 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wikid77.  EBE123  talkContribs 12:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)