User talk:Redcoat1945

Talk here.

If you have any issues with my edits, please do express them on here.

Blocked as a sockpuppet
I'd like to argue my case, seems unfair that I'd be convicted without even attending court. Please? Thank you. Redcoat1945 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Appeal Ban
By the looks of it, I have been permanently banned from Wikipedia for as long as I remain in this very house with this very phone.

I have been banned by @4me689 — someone who, until now, I thought I got along with quite well — @JimMichael2 — someone who, very ironically, is a sockpuppet account (given the 2 in his username), and by @TheScrubbyBubby or however you spell his name, somewhat who is who adamantly opposed to racism, he had to put up THREE different userboxes stating so (also supports Irish reunification despite a plurality of Northern Irish people being against it).

But regardless of everything — I'm a labour voter myself, his politics is not my issue — I find it quite appalling how I've been banned by a kangaroo court while I was voting in a clearly fraudulent contest. It's like being convicted of murder without even knowing you were facing trial. I had no idea you were investigating me and my, perhaps questionable, at times, antics.

Could I at least mount a defense?

Is that too much?

Kangaroo Court.

Yours sincerely,

Someone quite fond of Marsha Hunt.

Thank you. Redcoat1945 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , well there's been multiple evidence telling that you've been using multiple accounts. also, and , let's correct him  4me689  (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

But I was not present in trial. This was essentially trial in absentia; a kangaroo court organised by one man with three accounts.

By correcting do you mean modifying my message or by battering me physically? What are you, the Wikipedia Mafia?

Certainly the wikipedia establishment. Hugely disappointing experience, I've loved Wikipedia since 2007 but I do suppose that He who is pulling the strings must silence opposition. Redcoat1945 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * well you're not getting unbanned simple as that, have a good day.  4me689  (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What a shock. Redcoat1945 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You're effectively banning me without an adequate trial but out of personal spite because you were losing the vote in the Marsha Hunt section. Beyond dreadful. Appalling. Frankly appalling.

You have insulted, berated, and spoken horribly ill of a dead, virtuous, kind woman. How very nasty of you. Redcoat1945 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * well do you think technoblade is eligible for inclusion???
 * chances are you're probably going to say yes.
 * get over this, I'm just a messenger, I did not ban you the moderators did, you're never going to get unbanned.  4me689  (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why my name has been invoked here - I’ve had nothing to do with this investigation. In fact I’ve been on holiday the last few days, so my Wiki contributions have been minimal as a result. Hence my relative lack of comments on the Marsha Hunt discussions. What I can say is that there has always been zero tolerance for sockpuppetry and abusing multiple accounts, and that won’t change anytime soon. TheScrubby (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed not to the other account on the Marsha Hunt discussion (in fact, neither account signed their votes). Where is the sockpuppetry? Redcoat1945 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Hunt
Marsha Hunt.

Born October 1917.

Left this life September 2022.

They scattered her legacy,

But they too will be scattered.

Fate has ordained you be silenced,

But they too will be silenced.

O Marsha Hunt, actress, activist, humanitarian. Redcoat1945 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@4me689
Loathsome bugger.

I never denied to being ingrid987 (nor did I sign the votes). How is that sockpuppetry? Redcoat1945 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, just go to your sockpuppet investigations page if you want to see why you are banned and How is that sockpuppetry. but in short, you & Ingrid997 had similar arguments to the inclusion of Marsha Hunt, both accounts started contributing shortly after said talk section was created, and you both responded minutes after each other, not to mention both of you where socks of Nico the bico. also I wasn't the one who banned you I just reported you, the administrator named  banned u. if you really want an appeal go to his talk page, though I highly highly doubt you're ever going to get an appeal.  4me689  (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to appeal, follow the instructions in the block notice. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Janis Paige
Yesterday she became 100.

Add this to her Wiki. Redcoat1945 (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@4me689 add this to her page. Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * hell no, cuz your banned for sock puppetry.  4me689  (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Hunt 2
They attacked her.

They bullied her.

They betrayed her.

The Wikipedia Mafia assassinated her,

Burned her legacy.

Fate will ordain Marsha Hunt be granted a place in the 2022 page. Redcoat1945 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Hunt 3
Her life was virtuous,

Colourful and long.

Long did she live.

Her death, however so notable, snubbed by the Wikipedia Mafia.

So kind, so noble.

But my attempts won't be in vain.

Lady Hunt, as always, will have the last laugh.

The Wikipedia Mafia will fall. Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Hunt 4
They have berated you.

They have insulted you.

The dead be awaken.

Marsha Hunt will be added to the 2022 page.

The Wikipedia Mafia will collapse.

Marsha Hunt

Arsha Hunt

Rsha Hunt

Sha Hunt

Ha Hunt

A Hunt

Hunt

Unt

Nt

T

O Marsha Hunt

The last laugh. Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Hunt 5
O Marsha Hunt,

They did you wrong.

They will pay for it.

They must.

They scattered your beautiful legacy.

The Wikipedia Mafia must fall. Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Hunt 6
Marsha Hunt says bye bye, always on Wikipedia. Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mafia
@TheScrubby @BlackKite @4me689

I have devoted a decent chunk of the past three years of my life towards improving Wikipedia. It appears as if these past three years have been entirely in vain, as the recent disastrous set of policies imposed on the common Wikipedia user by a small, select group of mafia men have seriously hampered the website.

I have a list of demands; if unanswered, I will continue to create new accounts for the foreseeable future.

1. Repeal the domestic policy. No one supports it, it has resulted in the exclusion of several high-profile celebrities, and it is clearly designed to consolidate the Wikipedia Mafia's power.

2. Revert the bias in politician biographies. The Donald Trump article lead section says, scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history, which is a clear example of Wikipedia's deteriorating objectivity. It was not even two years ago when Trump received nearly 47% of the vote. This fact cannot be ignored. I personally have a strong disdain for Donald Trump and his supporters, but I do not for a second believe Wikipedia should abandon its neutrality. In the Boris Johnson lead section, it states "Johnson is a controversial figure in British politics. Supporters have praised him as humorous, witty, and entertaining, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative Party voters. Conversely, his critics have accused him of lying, elitism, cronyism and bigotry" — I believe this beautiful display of neutrality and objectivity should be mirrored in articles such as Trump's.

3. Weaken The Mafia. I believe that the problem with talk pages is that only the Wikipedia elite know about them and how to use them. This leads to serious problems with voting; it provides us all with a disproportionate representation of the most dedicated editors. I believe unless we have a unanimous consensus, we should keep the status quo ante bellum.

I believe this is the blueprint for success. If you follow with these proposals, Wikipedia will become a terrific site and might bounce back from its current and precarious situation.

If you choose to ignore me, I will continue to seek enforcing this blueprint through the means of sockpuppetry and cyber-terrorism. Redcoat1945 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)