SammySmith8765
Welcome
edit
|
"Haters"
editPlease don't call people "haters" because they remove an image from a crowded page.[1] Bishonen | talk 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC).
- Good point It’s more important to let long time hater editors run rampant and slam newcomers when HE LITERALLY ENCOURAGELY PEOPLE TO EDIT HIS USERPAGE. He has a bunch of serious stuff on his page (although he tries to put it in a fun way because is very much a humanist. For example - “I LITERALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EDIT MY USER PAGE BECAUSE I’M A FRIENDLY WELCOMING GUY.” - Mr. Jimmy Wales.
- Like I said though. It’s much better to focus on an edit summary comment made with the primary intention of learning what I did wrong than focusing on a long time editor making an edit that violates multiple core policies Wikipedia policies without any explanation in the edit .... I believe that is a policy violation to but he’s like made a lot of edits and stuff so he’s cool and the rules don’t apply to him. Not to mention the owner of the User Page wants and encourages people to edit and the owner is LITERALLY THE MAIN DRIVIMG FORCE THAT BROUGHT THIS INCREDIBLE WORLD CHANGING THING CALLED WIKIPEDIA TO REALITY (I mean anyone with access to the internet almost anywhere basically has access to THE SUM OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. WHAT A MIND BLOWINGLY GREAT LEAP FORWARD FOR ALL OF MANKIND). But you’re right - we should just ignore Jimmy Wales’ wishes and Wiki policies and give no explanation for any of it. Btw - Jimmy Wales wishes and encouragement to edit his page are literally IN WRITING A FIRST GRADER COULD UNDERSTAND on his page and other pages as well. I can show you were they are and slowly go over them with you so you understand. I’m really not trying to be a jerk. I just can’t stand for entrenched “the policies don’t apply to me BS” among “established” editors that will ultimately ruin Wikipedia if allowed to continue - and don’t get me wrong I’ve checked around and there are a lot of good hearted helpful editors here too but they are in the minority I’m afraid.
- Also, good point on him having a “crowded page.” An excellent reason to ignore his wishes and Wikipedia’s core policies. Jimmy Wales probably doesn’t have a clue how to even edit his user page or edit Wikipedia that poor guy!! A well intentioned and thought out small picture in the bottom right of the page really just took Mr. Wales’ User Page from a couple paragraphs of easily understandable welcoming words and kind explanations about various things to a manifesto on rocket science and quantum physics (as well as quantum mechanics) written in the style of James Joyce’s Ulysses. My bad.
- I just figured there was so many unattractive, bland, similar looking pictures that were really bad jokes trying sub sophomorically trying to be clever and to make some excessively melodramatic entirely too serious point about some policy or idea that could be interpreted many many ways (there’s more than one way to fillet a feline - an important thing to remember that often goes horribly lost when you are dealing with so many intelligent, brilliant, experts who are passionate about their fields of work) leading to a Kafkaesque, confusing, unnatractive, unwelcoming (other than Mr. Wales smile and his genuine, friendly, and endearing encouragement to edit his page (which is a brilliant way to help people implicitly understand what Wikipedia is all about AND IT’S FROM JIMMY WALES HIMSELF. Simply brilliant) page that would scare any user into thinking being a Wikipedia editor is a beaureaucratic nightmare that only the most brilliant can use.
- Anyways my sincerest apologies. My little mountain picture that tried to add something different, welcoming, natural, and pretty to a little corner of his user page and lighten it up a bit and make it more welcoming was simply wayyyy to much. I basically divided Wikipedia by zero.
- I humbly beg and Grovel for your forgiveness you demigod longtime Wikipedia editor. I don’t know how you have the patience to put up with idiot wannabe editors like me but you are basically an angel for doing it. Maybe even Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Ganesh, and the prophet Muhammad combined (that’s prob a bit euphemistic but I hope you see how much respect and admiration I have for you).
- Anyways you’re right - we should ignore ol’ Jimbo’s wishes and ignore the most fundamental idea underlying Wikipedia (which Mr. Wales didn’t just explain in writing, which doesn’t do usually cause anything but a surface level quasi-understanding, but Mr. Wales laid out a brilliantly simple little welcoming fun gesture on his page). I apologize for following Wikipedia’s policies and trying to make Wikipedia better. I thought the picture was a nice little cubby hole of welcoming to Mr. Wales User Page - among a bunch of really bad jokes and silly pictures trying to cleverly and sneakily (#cleverjokesneakyimsosmarthiddenagendaFAIL) push a hidden agenda (but a hilariously pellucid attempt) of obscure overly entrenched 1983ish BS policies - and add a little something positive to the fascinating , endless wonder of fun and knowledge that is Wikipedia - and to do something fun per Ol’ Jimbo’s wishes as well but who cares about. Why should we respect his wishes? He prob hasn’t done crap for Wikipedia and never contributes and just endlessly trolls the damn thing.
- My apologies. Please let me know what exactly I did that was wrong and why it was ok for the other user to erase my edit against policy and Mr. Wales wishes with no edit summary - I read you were supposed to explain your edits but I’m glad I know better now.
- Best regards and don’t worry! Even though I nearly broke the concise (I bet the whole of Wikipedia doesn’t take up but 1mg or so of memory) little pearl that is Wikipedia I look forward to any guidance and help you can provide!!!! And don’t worry. I read about signing with the three tildes and everything!! I really am trying to help make Wikipedia better and be a good editor who acts without any thought whatsoever and pretends to be super smart (and is obviously always right).
- I’ll get there someday with a bit of help!! I have a lot of information to add, correct, make more clear. I had a full scholarship to Law school and graduated with honors and since then I have won two very important cases (one with our state Supreme Court and one with our state Court of Appeals) both of which were be published and binding opinions throughout the state which is very rare (and I’ve done countless “regular cases” in federal and state court [although really the stakes couldn’t be higher more often than not)]. Also, law school I was on tour throughout the country playing music for a few years opening up for and/or touring with many famous bands with multiple number one (ok sometimes just top ten) hits as well as underground bands with cult followings and when I was really young I even drank Hennessy (and did fun things) backstage with my hip hop band and a famous rapper (who is one of the first rappers to be gain widespread acceptance by the public) and then had to go to high school the next day(¡¡No joke!!). Everyone else in the band was a good bit older than me. Our group alps opened for countless other foundational as well as current underground hip hop groups/producers rappers etc. while I was still in high-school! Btw - what fun it is to have few responsibilities and be young). I also almost got a perfect score on my math sat after being up all night doing some serious partying (🤷♂️🤪). And I have an eight foot tall reflecting telescope that I’ve seen all the Messier objects with and countless other gems of the sky. And I love to read and ride bikes and watch or play soccer and travel and meet new people etc etc etc.
- Sorry for the brag ramble but my real intention is to let you know I have been using and donating to Wikipedia for years and often noticed issues such as biased or enequally balanced pages, facts that were just plain wrong, facts that were misleading, editors who had gotten too big for their britches and essentially owned certain pages, (yes I would check the history of the page and the talk page and their is so much pettiness and blatant bias with some editors (often the admins are the worst offenders) and a mass of statements that need citations and sentences that could convey their meaning more concisely and clearly etc etc etc.
- Please just let me know how your Kafkaesque, yes means no and 2+2=5 policies work, “tyranny without a tyrant” ( - Hannah Arendt) type self-perpetuating mazes of rules and policies that often exist only to self-perpetuate and utterly baffle those stuck in the world of dream logic bureaucracy so those who are stuck in this madmaze are too confused and exhausted to ever dream of fixing their broke system if they can even see beyond the modern paradigm (think of the Allegory of the Cave and glimpse the absurdity of the situation. (I could explain it better but I’ll save it for some other time) to ever fix the broken system), works and I will try my ‘hardest’ to be a “good editor” (or anti-edit editor ... see ... I’m already catching on bud don’t worry 😉😉😉😉😉😏🤭🤫🤣🙃🤪).
- I really would like to just “help” and sorry for my mistake that was beneficial to Wikipedia and was in line with the most important concept and policies of Wikipedia and was encouraged by the man who brought Wikipedia from a mere idea he and his partner were slowly flushing out to creating and pushing all the right buttons to evolve his oh so simple but oh so brilliant concept into something that makes the world better for so many people.
- You taught me an important lesson. I should think for just a split second before I act and think about what I’m saying ... You know? No one knows the whole story. I could explain all the logic and theory but essentially it’s a terrible thing to say to someone “you’re wrong don’t do that” (and the over crowded reasoning you gave as to why it should be erased ... you’re a funny guy. I like absurdist humor). But seriously the greatest minds in philosophy, psychology, science, and many other subjects agree that thoughtless black and white responses to an idea, hypothesis, answer etc etc etc. when we don’t know the whole story is probably the number one underlying human flaw leading to people voting against their interests, ruining the environment, and now our own most fundamental flaw will ironically (not in the Alanis Morissette way) ALMOST CERTAINLY LEAD TO THE EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE. Top experts with PhDs relevant to the above concepts or otherwise established brilliant individuals agree that we have almost certainly spent the last twenty years ignoring all warnings and crossing the rubicon and, barring a miracle, we will be extinct in the next 300 - 2000 years.
Anyways I look forward to hearing from you!!
Actually I don’t look forward to talking with you anymore (unless you want to have a real human to human Wikipedia chat about these issues), I retract my dedision to finally become an editor (I was worried about becoming an editor [rather than just paying a not insignificant yearly sum to support something I thought was a wonderful gift to humanity] because I spend entirely too long on projects that I think are important [and projects that aren’t so important too - you never know when something will seemingly small will have a major cause and effect {I’m just a bit of a perfectionist}]) and spending countless hours fixing articles, adding citations, gaining consensus when necessary (and if I don’t gain consensus for legitimate and reasoned “non-support” votes outweighing the support votes that’s great too. It’s what once made Wikipedia so promising, I’m not sorry whatsoever.
Finally, I no longer will be financially supporting Wikipedia with a not insignificant yearly donation (I donate to many charities but gave the most by far to Wikipedia as I’m idealistic and Jimmy Wales was and is clearly idealistic and the essence of Wikipedia once was clearly one of idealism and simple humanitarianism) as it is now clear, as I had worried, that Wikipedia is run by mindless automatons who gained their majority, and the power that goes with it, through a concept similar to idiocracy and the tracks have hopelessly gone off the train. Just fyi - the seemingly increasing thoughtless, behind the scenes, BS, which was causing articles that had once been expertly churned into a smooth butter to overchurned crap was the major concern that finally made me decide to fully apply myself as an editor (and when I do I invest my time something I expend great effort as previous states.
Good luck and I hope Wikipedia finds the purpose it once had but it won’t regain that purpose from people like me who believe in equal application of rules, doing away with arbitrary rules, and not taking one side just because they have more edits. The number of edits someone has now allows them to bend the truth not to mention consensus is now almost always a consensus to vote against the newer editor or the editor who does not vote for Wikipedia’s idiocractic party (etc etc etc Kafkaesque tyranny without a tyrant etc etc etc ad infinitum.
Sincerely (do not fret I read about the “three tildes” signature),
SammySmith8765 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I would be happy to have an open minded (or at least I will do my best to keep an open mind. I am naturally a listener so I’m usually good about being self-conscious and thoughtful but absolutely fail at times too) conversation about these if you are capable of trying to not make snap judgments and try to be thoughtful and listen (and you feel like it). No worries whatsoever if not. Happy Sunday bud!!
P.P.S. God bless Jimmy Wales. A selfless brilliant guy with a great smile who did something to greatly advance the human race!! You are truly one of my heroes Mr. Wales!!!
Please don't add that picture again. There is a large difference between commenting on someone's talk page, and posting a picture to their user page. Furthermore, that image appears to be a copyright violation as the uploader did not own the copyright (and hence did not have the right to grant Wikipedia the right to use the picture), and Wikipedia apparently has had no OTRS permission from the copyright holder to use the picture. The image has now been listed for deletion. Meters (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. You get one chance to make a reasonable unblock request; if it's merely more trolling, your access to editing this page will be revoked, and you'll have to send further unblock requests through less public channels, which I'm sure you wouldn't like. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
SammySmith8765 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Could I give my reason via email or in some non-public way? SammySmith8765 (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you're unwilling to make a public request, you can try appealling through WP:UTRS. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
SammySmith8765 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wiki
I think this is all a big misunderstanding. I was blocked before I could say anything and I was told to appeal here. This is the first time I’ll be heard. Other than two days I was crazy in the head and made some dumb comments on a talk page I contributed. There was no sockpuppetry. After an account was banned for a username I created a new account like I was told.
May 2016 - SammySmith8765 - Created in 2016 and made one edit in the mainspace (replaced a citation needed tag with a reference). The rest of the edits were on April 15, 2018. I was amidst an acute mental health crisis this time. This was right around when things were at their worst. it was still undiagnosed and I was (obviously) delusional. I have since been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
The end of 2017 to the end of 2018. That year is a terribly painful time for me. It’s when I started to lose everything I cared about. And coming across these god awful monstrosities of text fills me with shame. SammySmith was from a different universe and I have a hard time understanding why I did that. I had pretty much forgotten about this account. SammySmith8765's last edit before this appeal was April 15 2018. I created the account DonkeyPunchResin on November 5, 2018. Under this account I contributed to Wikipedia. I had even started checking recent changes
December 2017 - GrabEmByTheDick - No edits. Created amidst mental health crisis. I don’t recall making this account and had forgotten about it. I was surprised to see it when this all came up
November 2018 DonkeyPunchResin - 2+ years of productive contributions. I had even started checking recent changes. I came home drunk and got on Wikipedia and made some stupid jokes on a talk page I apologized and thanked the other user who was nice about it. No one upset. I was just being dumb. I’m apologize for these edits. On December 15 at 16:49 a user posted to ANI complaining of my username. At 17:34 I was indefinitely blocked. Without so much as a chance to reply. In 2+ year of editing no one so much as batted an eye about my username. And it doesn’t even fall into any category for disallowed usernames. Vulgarity isn’t a listed category and Wikipedia is not censored. How many potential editors might be a little different and be turned off from editing wikipedia because of stuff like this? Making wikipedia editors even less diverse.
December 2020 - WhatItIsNic - No edits - I created this account after I was told to create another account when DonkeyPunchResin was blocked. I’m not sure why I created this one and didn’t use it. I had forgotten I created it when I created SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters and was surprised to see it in the Sockpuppet investigation.
SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters - Created after I was told to create a new one when DPR was blocked. Contributed. I did edit the Demagogue talk page in a misleading way as I implied I hadn’t edited there before. Then I called out an editor for closing an RfC he participated in. The user then closed the discussion about his improper RfC closure. I’m nearly certain this user then instigated the Sockpuppet investigation. I was blocked before I could say anything and in appealing the blocks I was told I needed to appeal SammySmith8765. This will be the first time I’m being heard out about all this.
In all I never made a single edit to a mainspace article where I wasn't trying to better Wikipedia and contributed in a variety of ways. There were two days I was crazy in the head and made dumb edits and I apologize but other than that I think I’ve made some contributions. I’d like to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. SammySmith8765 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're still creating accounts. I'm removing talk page access as this is just an enormous waste of time for all. WP:UTRS is available for appeals. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.