User talk:RandomBlobby

Welcome!
Hi RandomBlobby! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! (ཧེ་དར - སྦལ་ཏི། (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC))

Drmies bullying me
I blocked your other account, User talk:ThirteenToThirty, and the IP range you used to edit your hobby horse. It is obvious that this was abuse. If you wish to try and make progress with that Buss article, you may do so from the talk page; please be forewarned that any further disruption may result in more blocks, with either a block on editing article space or an indefinite block as possible options. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If your other account wasn't meant to edit on Wikipedia it shouldn't be a problem if it is blocked. But you should not be surprised to find that your range is blocked if you edit both logged in and out. That's just really basic. Whether this temporary block should be lifted, I'll leave that to the next administrator--but I can predict that an unblock would likely be based on you stating that you will NOT edit while not logged in, and that any future switching (especially within the same article) between being logged in and logged out will be regarded as disruptive. BTW, you aren't blocked because you edited that article one way or another; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts and editing while logged out. That's the disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Drmies That is the first time you messaged me. I received no warning from you, when that would be the appropriate response if the real issue was me occasionally forgetting that I was logged in, although that is not what you put in your block explaination. I can't see how anyone was disrupted by me being accidentally logged in on rare occasions; it is not about the contributor but about the contributions, and my contributions have always been in the interests of the collaborative project as my edit histories show. From what I can see, I am allowed to edit logged out: WP:LOGGEDOUT, WP:IPSOCK, WP:LOGOUT. As I have stated, this account is exclusively to create articles because otherwise I am excessively burdensome on AfC. Occasionally I edit Wikipedia from this account because I forget I am logged in: prior to reverting the page at your suggestion yesterday, and being forced by a block to do it logged in, I only edited the Buss page 3 times before whilst logged into this account and all 3 were minor edits for typos, formatting, and bundling citations. I need to log in for use of the various tools I have installed, and its easy to forget to log out. Blocks have to be made for legitimate reasons, so of course it is problematic if is blocked despite only making one edit which no one had any issue with. As shown by my edit histories, I have never used the accounts or IP for sockpuppetry; if I start a conversation with one account or IP, I always use that for the same conversation. Too many accounts are arrogant because they've made edits with an account rather than their IP, as if that makes any difference to their contributions. That will never be me.


 * I spent a lot of my time writing a good article in good faith. The number of articles on Wikipedia without references, or with tags for better references that are over a decade old, is innumerable but you and Hipal haven't addressed those, and nor have either of you addressed the 10,000+ articles that reference Ancestry.com or the 600+ articles that reference Forebears.io that he claims to take issue with. The truth of the matter is that Hipal decided he had an issue with me and so you and him deleted my hard work piece by piece, when if there weren't an animus towards me some tags for improvement would have been put in place and I would have continued working on improving the article, as it was my ambition to get it to FA status. The destruction of the niche article with low readership without any willingness to collaborate from you or Hipal was nothing to do with the contents of the article and everything to do with who wrote it.


 * This whole thing was entirely unnecessary, when Wikipedia could have had a good article and a good contributor working towards improving the project. Instead, a good article was needlessly reverted and I feel bullied off of Wikipedia. Contributors that abide by WP:GF actually support good faith editors to become better, like when I made a cut and paste move because I didn't know any better, and I was politely advised on the best way to move articles. Unfortunately, in this instance I have been treated poorly and unfairly, and I didn't deserve that at all. But I can't control what others do so, as I always say, take care and share some WP:WikiLove. RandomBlobby (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Something I've noticed in my years reviewing unblock requests is that extremely long walls of text like your request tend to get ignored. This can be amplified further in the case of checkuser blocks, where there are only a handful of us that can actually lift the block. You would stand a far better chance of getting someone to actually look at your request if you were to read the guide to appealing blocks, and then distill your request to a handful of sentences that directly explain why the block is no longer needed to protect the project. SQL Query Me!  18:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uwe Buß


The article Uwe Buß has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Person fails WP:NBIO."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)