User talk:Pestcamel44

Welcome!
Hello, Pestcamel44, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Danger High voltage! 18:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction 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
 * If you're interested in military topics, you might want to check out WikiProject Military History. Danger High voltage! 19:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary execution
Hi - I'm afraid I had to remove the image you added. As the file says, "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

There is no fair use rationale for using it in Summary execution and I doubt that there could be one. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's okay Dougweller. Thank you for pointing this out. 28 February 2013

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * I would suggest a minimum condition for unblock here would be a restriction to only one account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's usually a minimum condition for anyone, regardless of whether they were blocked for socking or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would personally not unblock without seeing a definite commitment to restrict to only one account. There is absolutely no reason to use multiple accounts for the reason stated by this editor.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, restriction to one account is a minimum, but I'm concerned about the lack of honesty or competency shown above. I don't feel it's possible to have had that much overlap in such a short period with accounts that were single purpose in nature, and then to act deliberately obtuse about it.  This just feels like vanilla sockpuppetry to me.  Kuru   (talk)  01:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with Kuru here especially over what she/he claims is my lack of "honesty" and/or "competency." I feel I have been nothing but honest here. Until two days ago I had not used my Wikipedia accounts in two weeks. If users had asked me to remember specific times when I had used the accounts (which users had not done, Kuru included, even after I had specifically asked for this) then I could have been more detailed in my responses to them, which eventually (after having received these specific accusations) I was. In terms of "competency" I have add that it's unfair on Kuru's part to assume that everyone using wikipedia is an expert on its rules and structures after a few months. I can see that most people discussing this here have several years experience using wikipedia but it took time to build their understandings of how it worked too. The vast majority of people learn by doing things and making mistakes not by reading manuals or books on law and then going out to conduct their lives. Wikipedia is not meant to be a legalistic jungle, it's about enhancing humanity's store of knowledge and part of that is about ensuring their is balance. This is what I've tried to do and why I'm interesting in Wikipedia. Please look at my edits, you will see that the vast majority of them are well cited, and contribute important elements and topics to the pages they deal with (see Vietnam War page's War Crimes section, creation of English version of Archimedes Patti, discussions on the talk page of United States). Finally your last comment that this is "vanilla sockpuppety" is not relevant here because I've already admitted that the action was wrong and my intention to change this and provided a plan on how to correct this, (not by removing all of the other accounts but by keeping them separate based on topic content, keeping the passwords easily available so as to avoid mixing them and joining groups respective to the content that each user account deals with. This does not have to be immediate, and I can see that the majority of users above, Kuru included, agree that a one account restriction should be imposed. Nevertheless, it is for these reasons that I am appealing that the ban as it fits the criteria for removal as being no longer necessary.Pestcamel44 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have at least thirty-nine accounts, which even if your explanation for them were acceptable is wholly unreasonable. On your userpage you have declared none of them. If you wish this account to be unblocked as being the only one which you will use, you will need to agree here to a limitation of one account only. A subsequent application for an alternate account for use from insecure sites would probably be looked on with favour. You need no others. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anthony Bradbury, I appreciate your reply and agreement to restore my account but please do not tie the multiple account issue into this. They are separate issues. I do have a right to possess multiple accounts. The issue here is sockpuppetry not whether or not a user can have multiple accounts which per wikipedia's policy Sock puppetry states that one reason for creating alternate accounts can be privacy. The reason is as follows: "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Clearly topics like ongoing wars would qualify as "highly controversial" and my identity is hardly well hidden considering each admin can access my IP address. I have admitted fault for the sockpuppetry issue and agreed to address it but possessing multiple accounts is still clearly within my rights.Pestcamel44 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have blatantly abused the "privacy" allowance by using at least thirty-nine accounts, some of which were clearly used dishonestly, and many of which were used for editing articles that were in no way controversial. And your assertion that admins can see your IP address is false - we cannot see it. The consensus seems to be that you have a simple choice here of one account or none, so stop abusing what good faith you are being shown and make your choice between those two options. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I accept to have one account. I'm sorry if you feel that I am "abusing your good faith." I was not trying to and please assume that I too am acting in good faith and deserve to be addressed respectfully and not repeatedly called abusive, dishonest or be addressed with sarcasm (e.g. "jog your memory?"). My inquiring above about multiple accounts was done to understand and avoid potential problems later on. If I am misreading the wikipedia policy on having multiple accounts for dealing with controversial issues (e.g. ongoing wars) then please let me know. If you don't have time to answer this then please unblock me and I can raise it at another forum. I'm simply asking so I can avoid a followup accusation against me which would probably lead to a permanent ban. Thank you for your time and the discussion of these issues.Pestcamel44 (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few things in this conversation which, I must admit, fail to fill me with confidence. My main reservation is that you have not acknowledged at any point that your editing was in any way problematic. Your repeated assertion that anyone can have multiple accounts "as long as they have a good reason" is vague - policy does allow more than one account but there are specific circumstances stipulated under which multiple accounts are acceptable. Even if this were not the case, the sheer number of accounts you have run shows a tendency to abusively toe the line, and a fundamental deficit of understanding of the spirit of the rules surrounding multiple accounts. I find your insistence that you had no idea that edit warring with separate accounts on the same article was in any way deceptive or underhanded particularly unconvincing. Despite everything I just said, I am more than happy to unblock your account and give you a second chance, as long as you clearly understand that you are strictly restricted to one account only (a restriction which has ample precedence) and that this is your final warning not to create sockpuppets. Do you accept this? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Starting a new account while blocked is block evasion, and accordingly I have blocked Officialguide. Creating yet another account while discussion here is ongoing does not help you.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry. I've tried to follow all of the rules. I asked for a reply and no one responded for 10 days to me. I was able to create a new account and you can see that I've made sure to keep my editing, which has been relatively limited, to the one account Officialguide unless otherwise using an open IP address. In other words, I've been showing that I am now following the rules of having one account.Pestcamel44 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On April 10th you agreed, without reservation, not to create any more sockpuppets. So why did you? A delay in responding to your request is not a valid excuse. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson please list exactly what "the issues that have been raised" in the above are. If I can't address (or haven't already addressed) them it's unlikely I'll be able to in 3 months, which is a requirement for the unblock them.Pestcamel44 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are misunderstanding this completely, so please stop arguing and try to listen. You were *not* told you could start a *new* account. What you were told was that you could maybe have *this* account unblocked, but that would be conditional on your sticking to only *this one* account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee, I do understand that but what you are confusing is the fact that I had not received that message. All that I knew was that I hadn't been responded to and that I was able to start an account. Please check my logins onto this account if you don't believe me. I never got  Basa lisk  message which agreed to allow me to use only Pestcamel44 until 2/3(?) days ago when I was again blocked. At that time I read  Basa lisk 's mesage and sure enough he was asking if I would accept to only use one account. I replied that that was exactly what I had been doing ever since. I offered the name of the account user:officialguide and asked for him/her to take a look at it and see that I had done exactly what was asked of me and what I had promised to do under the previous discussion (only edit under one account and joining groups to help find a community of similarly interested editors). What I'm asking for is to be allowed to continue to edit using user:officialguide as my sole account as I have been for the past 3 weeks. I will never use any of the other accounts for editing again and I haven't since the sock puppet investigation began. Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for responding and not simply rejecting my request. Please let me know if I can further clarify this and please feel free to investigate my usage as thoroughly as possible and you I'm sure you will see that I am being truthful and acting in good faith. Thank you.Pestcamel44 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)