User talk:Piano410

Welcome!

Hello, Piano410, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

1) This paper [1] does not mention lead that I see 2) Why add this content to the middle of a sentence on no symptoms? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sequoia dakotensis without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KJ^{«Click Here»} 02:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Khalifa copyright problem

Some of the material you included in the above article was copied from http://academic.csuohio.edu/duffy_s/CVE_601_Struct_1.pdf, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Union Square (Seattle), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LEED. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shannon & Wilson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richland, Bloomberg and Portland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (2016), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sounder Bruce 03:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to adhere to the standards on capitalization (especially in references), and to add dates to references (in the standard U.S. format for U.S. topics; follow the existing standard as well). Sounder Bruce 04:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Piano410! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:23, Monday, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Recent edit to Bellevue murders

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Tushi Talk To Me 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CubeSat4U, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CubeSat4U! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Least concern

Hello CubeSat4U,

Thank you for your work. I want to ask you to take great care adding "least concern" to a taxobox (as with Caladenia gracillima and Abrodictyum caudatum). A species that is rated "least concern" in one place may not be so in another. In the case of C. gracillima, it is rated as "least concern" in Queensland but it may also occur in New South Wales - in which case it would most likely have a higher rating ("vulnerable" for example). Note that the Atlas of Living Australia has records from New South Wales but not Queensland!^[1] I've left your "NC" edit for the time being until I have other references concerning its distribution.

I have reverted the other edit you made to C. gracillima. Sorry. It is usual to have the common name at the top of the taxobox. If there is no common name, the binomial name is automatically entered in italics. (Binomials must always be in italics.)

Also, I noted your question at the Teahouse. The best way to add you images to pages is to upload them to Commons (as long as you are prepared to have them in the public domain). From there you can add them to Wikipedia.

Keep up the good work. I hope you continue to edit and are not bothered by the occasional criticism. Gderrin (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Caladenia gracillima". Atlas of Living Australia. Retrieved 5 April 2017.

Archiving can be made automatic

See Help:Archiving a talk page#Options. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch out for spam links

http://mangosteentea.co.uk/about is pretty spammy. It done not say much about the tea, lots about their product, and there is all sorts of links to buy. I removed the info from that page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marfa Lights

I already sent you a thanks, but I wanted to tell you I got great amusement this morning when I saw your edit to Marfa Lights. The one where you removed that addition of "Also it's really just aliens and this is all a load." with the edit comment "Vague, needs examples from references". A good catch and some nice sarcasm. Thank you for a nice laugh with my coffee. --Krelnik (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Piano410. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 09:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jody Deming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Europa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Piano410. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.	Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.	Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.	How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.	Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.	Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance	Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.

72bikers (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sack of puppets

@Murph9000: Hi, I see you have placed someone on here. Please let them know that the account is indeed under my control, & make sure its handled appropriately like all the other ones. You don't need to waste a Checkuser's time & request an investigation this time around, since I doubt it will succeed anyway. By the way, how did you like the name Al Legorhythm? If I do plan on coming back & request an unblock (perhaps in the next few months or even a year or so, so keep your eyes peeled), I would prefer using that account instead of this one. Oh & if would excuse me, I must find a way to force myself away from Wikipedia for now which had been quite unsuccessful for the past few days, since this past week had been particularly busy for me. I'm sure this week had been busy for you too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubeSat4U (talk • contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks for confirming that, coming completely clean is the only way to eventually get back onto Wikipedia without living under a permanent cloud of impending block. The name, yeah, it was clever. Creating a new account while blocked, not so clever. The new account hurts your future block appeal, but coming clean now helps it.

To properly close this, it would probably be best if you could post a message confirming this using Al Legorhythm (talk · contribs), so that all doubt is removed. Then stop using that account, and stop editing Wikipedia in any way until you successfully appeal one of the blocks. The only permitted activity while blocked is a low volume of talk on your user talk page directly related to your block and future appeal, but absolutely don't do anything on your talk that could be seen to be disruptive or a waste of time for admins. So, be careful, as admins have relatively limited patience with talk on blocked accounts. Ask them respectful, relevant, and necessary questions once, accept their answers, then silently wait until it's an appropriate time to appeal the block.

The block applies to you, the person. Coming clean and then completely stopping all editing is a critical part towards eventual unblocking. That includes editing as an IP user. Before requesting an unblock, please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks carefully. In your case, I suspect that you need to wait at least 6 months (with no recidivism), then take the Wikipedia:Standard offer, but one of the admins will likely confirm if that's the appropriate route, and how long would be appropriate to wait before requesting an unblock.

@Yunshui and Vanjagenije: PING, FYI.

Murph9000 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you guys would have to close the investigations yourselves, since the auto-block prevented me from doing so. I did the best what I could...for now... CubeSats 4U 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice on Al's talk page. Don't worry about closing the case, I've added notes to it, and it's best to leave closing to the SPI-admins. The notes ensure that your honesty is noted there (thanks), and should help minimise their time. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Thanks for the informative message. ~~I haven't used this account for very long,~~ Its been almost 6 months since I have used this account. so I thought that ~~the IP address~~ my password was lost. However, since I have logged in to this account successfully, I would like to request a CheckUser to confirm that I, Piano410 was the one who used that IP Address. If this can be done, I would very much appreciate your patience. Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon. As soon as I received the results, I would be happy to wait patiently for another 1-5 years or any quantifiable/definite value that both of us can hopefully agree on through consensus.

~~==Unblock request==~~

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Piano410 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Yunshui: You're the epitome of a true genius & a master Wikipedian! However, I would like to apologize for my previous conduct in Imaginary Trolling. I probably shouldn't have fooled a CheckUser in the 1st place & requested your advice. However, I couldn't help but discover something strange & disturbing happening to both Wikipedia & The Age of Empires Wiki while I'm gone & absent here. I believe that reverting back to the status quo seems to be best. Consequently, I should probably rewrite my block lift request to avoid further disruption. However, this does not mean that Piano410 should be blocked, since it is up to us as a community to rectify this problem as a whole, to ensure that such a thing were to never happen again. Of great importance is that I want to rectify this problem immediately, since it is my responsibility as a former Bureaucrat of Age of Empires wiki to regain the trust of the entire community. However, before doing so, I would like to take a short break from contributing for a while because my parents are complaining that I have not yet prepared for graduate school. I need time off to prepare for a GRE entrance exam, which is a requirement for some graduate schools. Most importantly, my parents are especially angry at my laziness being on the computer all day, since I still have yet to find myself a sustainable career. I come from an Asian background, so you guys probably get an idea of the strange situation I'm currently in which is neither good or bad. You can probably tell that I have been pretty mad & annoyed...but forget about madness. Lets just focus on the REAL problem.

Should the Oversighter on Wikipedia be demoted?

No

For example, the unblock request for both Piano410 & CubeSat4U had been removed suspiciously by an Oversighter. While I agree that censorship is reasonable under most circumstances, such removal of material WITHOUT horizontal slashes ~~like this~~ is utterly unacceptable. There are also no concrete evidence of a copyright violation in both of these messages I have sent you, since none of these have been crafted by any corporation or any outside entity as both Wikia & Wikipedia have a Free Use License, in which information copied from both sites can be copied but credit must be given. Although it can be argued that I should've provided a citation, such a policy currently doesn't exist in the Age of Empires wiki. Furthermore, any information posted onto both Wikipedia & Wikia are under free license, so anyone can use it for free as long as credit is given. This means that any troll or vandal can use my block as an example on how to redeem their editing privileges! I was able realize that such a feat can be pretty remarkable, even someone as insignificant as I am. As the Age of Empires Wiki is a sub-branch of Wikia & oversaw by their staff, such censorship is unreasonable in my opinion. Although it is likely that the Oversighter made an error on their behalf, under which the user may be susceptible to demotion, I can expect the user to have tremendous amount of experience under their belt, likely having censored countless number of copyright violations during their tenure. It is for this reason that I'm taking a Neutral position on behalf of the Oversighter, in regards to this decision & whoever censored my unblock request shouldn't be demoted for this reason.

Another reason why my unblock request was removed, was likely because I have overlooked the importance of verifiability as a former Bureaucrat of the Age of Empires Wiki. I failed to give credit to the Anon editor who was the one crafted my unblock request. However, anything published in both Wikia & Wikipedia are free as long as I give credit to the creator of the unblock request, which happened be me as an Anon user. Having confirmed that the Anon editor is me by posting this message, I should have access to the unblock request immediately. Furthermore, there are no copyright violations on both unblock requests. This is likely an error on behalf of the Oversighter who made that decision. Although this policy currently does not exist at the Age of Empires wiki, if I were to remain Bureaucrat, I would try my best to rectify this problem immediately by collaborating with the Oversighter who likely had made a mistake as well when removing the unblock request. Again, whoever made the decision should keep their rights. It is for this reason that I'm currently taking a Neutral position on behalf of the Oversighter. Both Me & the Oversighter have made their own mistakes on their behalf. Despite making these mistakes, I'm certain that both of us can improve as editors, & I hope we can collaborate together on how to improve both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires Wiki, with myself as Bureaucrat & an unknown Oversighter on both wikis. Since I have not made any personal attacks against the Oversighter, & remained patient during this discussion, it is for this reason that I'm currently taking a Neutral position towards my demotion or promotion. Most importantly, community consensus must be reached in order to promote or demote someone, so neither myself as Bureaucrat or the Oversighter who made the decision should be changed in Wikipedia or the Age of Empires Wiki in this situation, despite both of us making mistakes on their behalf across different encyclopedias. Since I pledge to improve as an editor on both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires, I hope to work with the Oversighter on how to best apply the Wikipedia policy on to the Age of Empires Wiki in the near future. Since I pledge to rectify this situation as a former Bureaucrat of the Age of Empires wiki, I believe that my rights at the Age of Empires wiki should NOT be changed in this particular situation.

Should the CheckUser be demoted?

No

Although it is likely that the CheckUser made some errors on their behalf with myself, the CheckUser was only doing their job to determine whether or not I have ABUSIVELY used multiple accounts. Although I'm certain that both of us have made some flaws in regards to application of different procedures or protocols, I have no significant grudge against the CheckUser, since whoever checked my account was simply doing their job. However, there are important points I would like to make:
I have, inadvertently, saved a file containing an unblock request for both CubeSat4U & Piano410. Before diving deep into the details, I would like to comment that the job of the CheckUser was there to simply to prove that I have used accounts abusively, & determine whether or not there was long term abuse for both accounts. There was no significant issue for both accounts I have used in the past since the evidence for using both accounts abusively was nonexistent, only until know. However, breaching my computer, searching for my most atrocious & important files is considered unacceptable per the privacy policy of the CheckUser. Despite making this mistake, someone inadvertently removed the CheckUser rights of @Yunshui. Although it is likely that the Bureaucrat made that decision simply to do their job, I want to request CheckUser rights back to @Yunshui. It is for this reason that I SUPPORT @Yunshui's promotion to CheckUser rights. Most importantly, both of us are interested in conducting Sockpuppet Investigations for Wikipedia in the near future. Having learned much from @Yunshui's performance, activity & willingness to help me redeem myself implies that both of are interested in collaborating together. Although these are good qualities for a CheckUser to have, these are also good qualities that are certainly expected for an administrator working for Wikipedia.

This may be an opinion, but it might be best for all CheckUsers such as @Yunshui to only use the tool on Wikipedia unless there is a severe case of sockpuppetry & shouldn't be used to spy on other accounts inappropriately on other encyclopedias. That would count as abusing the CheckUser ability. Whoever got affected by this spying should have all rights & editing privileges back. Furthermore, if a Sockpuppet Investigation is needed, there Must be evidence for that violation.
This can be done by using the Duck Test. Despite some possible inaccuracies & possible loopholes, this test proved to be extremely reliable on accounts that are clearly dedicated to trolling. I find this strategy to be most effective & efficient against trolls or vandals who are willing to create numerous accounts. The vast majority of these 100% trolling/vandalizing accounts have similar names. Despite the test being seemingly random, there is a distinct pattern that can be analyzed by simply examining the text & characters inside the username of someone's account. This is probably the result of a technique known as random sampling or random analysis. I'm not familiar with the technical & scientific details about the CheckUser ability, so this is just pure speculation. Even if someone doesn't know what a CheckUser is or what their purpose is, they can start to get an idea here. I myself, have conducted this test on several occasions, & it worked remarkably well to my surprise. Just using that test singlehandedly wiped out all accounts that are 100% hellbent on trolling & vandalism, as indicated in the Candy Crush wiki.

I have heard of the elephant test, which could theoretically be used, but it is less useful, since I find that test to be more focused on jumping into to conclusions rather than an actual test to be used on trolls or vandals. I think this is what happened back to the folks at the Age of Empires wiki & Wikipedia, where I have found folks like UnofficialGameExpert78 & Casliber who seemed to have disappeared without a trace. It is for this reason that I would like to delete my suggested spider test where this would allow the CheckUser to essentially jumping into conclusions about which sockpuppeting troll/vandal was which. This can lead to VERY dangerous consequences, as mentioned beforehand since it could result in the CheckUser getting demoted. This could result in a terrifying situation where the CheckUser can just wreak havoc & block everyone at will, including Bureaucrats for example. There is a possibility, that is this reason of the overpowerful CheckUser ability where anyone could get blocked without evidence. Understanding the CheckUser tool & how powerful it can be should be made absolutely mandatory for all good faith contributors in order to minimize collateral damage which is something I'm interested in, but of course I don't really have much time for that.
Having analyzed the situation at hand, it is in my opinion that I Piano410 should NOT be considered as an abusing sockmaster or sockpuppet for the purpose of destroying Wikipedia or the Age of Empires wiki but rather someone who could contribute to great effect across both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires wiki. It is for this reason that I should grant another try in rewriting my Block Lift Request. As a result, Piano410 should NOT be blocked & should attempt to rewrite the block lift on behalf of the alternative account CubeSat4U. Note that this hypothetical block lift, is just a ticket to prove why I consider myself to be a generally good faith contributor, so thank you very much for considering my analysis of the situation for Wikipedia & the Age of Empires wiki. Please don't rush yourselves when evaluating my position. For those of you who are quick to jump into conclusions, I figure this would certainly be an interesting read. For some reason, I would like to request the status quo to be imposed prior to my proposed block lift, since I have witnessed counterproductive activity happening to both Age of Empires wiki & Wikipedia. If there are any questions why I should rewrite my block lift appeal, I would happy to answer your following questions. Thanks all, for your tremendous patience in reading this seemingly lengthy proposal. And of course, happy editing!
Pianos 4U 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=:::@[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]: You're the epitome of a true genius & a master Wikipedian! However, I would like to apologize for my previous conduct in ''Imaginary Trolling''. I probably shouldn't have fooled a CheckUser in the 1st place & requested your advice. However, I couldn't help but discover something strange & disturbing happening to both Wikipedia & [http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity The Age of Empires Wiki] while I'm gone & absent here. I believe that reverting back to the status quo seems to be best. Consequently, I should probably rewrite my block lift request to avoid further disruption. However, this does not mean that Piano410 should be blocked, since it is up to us as a community to rectify this problem as a whole, to ensure that such a thing were to never happen again. Of great importance is that I want to rectify this problem immediately, since it is my responsibility as a former Bureaucrat of Age of Empires wiki to regain the trust of the entire community. However, before doing so, I would like to take a short break from contributing for a while because my parents are complaining that I have not yet prepared for graduate school. I need time off to prepare for a GRE entrance exam, which is a requirement for some graduate schools. Most importantly, my parents are especially angry at my laziness being on the computer all day, since I still have yet to find myself a sustainable career. I come from an Asian background, so you guys probably get an idea of the strange situation I'm currently in which is neither good or bad. You can probably tell that I have been pretty mad & annoyed...but forget about madness. Lets just focus on the '''REAL''' problem. ===Should the Oversighter on Wikipedia be demoted?=== ====No==== #For example, the unblock request for both [[User:Piano410|Piano410]] & [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] had been removed suspiciously by an [[Wikipedia:Oversight|Oversighter]]. While I agree that censorship is reasonable under most circumstances, such removal of material '''WITHOUT''' horizontal slashes <s>like this</s> is utterly unacceptable. There are also no concrete evidence of a copyright violation in both of these messages I have sent you, since none of these have been crafted by any corporation or any outside entity as both Wikia & Wikipedia have a Free Use License, in which information copied from both sites can be copied but credit must be given. Although it can be argued that I should've provided a citation, such a policy currently doesn't exist in the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. Furthermore, any information posted onto both Wikipedia & Wikia are under free license, so anyone can use it for free as long as credit is given. This means that any troll or vandal can use my block as an example on how to redeem their editing privileges! I was able realize that such a feat can be pretty remarkable, even someone as insignificant as I am. As the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki is a sub-branch of Wikia & oversaw by their staff, such censorship is unreasonable in my opinion. Although it is likely that the Oversighter made an error on their behalf, under which the user may be susceptible to demotion, I can expect the user to have tremendous amount of experience under their belt, likely having censored countless number of copyright violations during their tenure. It is for this reason that I'm taking a '''Neutral''' position on behalf of the Oversighter, in regards to this decision & whoever censored my unblock request shouldn't be demoted for this reason. #Another reason why my unblock request was removed, was likely because I have overlooked the importance of verifiability as a former Bureaucrat of the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki. I failed to give credit to the Anon editor who was the one crafted my unblock request. However, anything published in both Wikia & Wikipedia are free as long as I give credit to the creator of the unblock request, which happened be me as an Anon user. Having confirmed that the Anon editor is me by posting this message, I should have access to the unblock request immediately. Furthermore, there are no copyright violations on both unblock requests. This is likely an error on behalf of the Oversighter who made that decision. Although this policy currently does not exist at the ''Age of Empires'' wiki, if I were to remain Bureaucrat, I would try my best to rectify this problem immediately by collaborating with the Oversighter who likely had made a mistake as well when removing the unblock request. Again, whoever made the decision should keep their rights. It is for this reason that I'm currently taking a '''Neutral''' position on behalf of the Oversighter. Both Me & the Oversighter have made their own mistakes on their behalf. Despite making these mistakes, I'm certain that both of us can improve as editors, & I hope we can collaborate together on how to improve both Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki, with myself as Bureaucrat & an unknown Oversighter on both wikis. Since I have not made any personal attacks against the Oversighter, & remained patient during this discussion, it is for this reason that I'm currently taking a '''Neutral''' position towards my demotion or promotion. Most importantly, community consensus must be reached in order to promote or demote someone, so neither myself as Bureaucrat or the Oversighter who made the decision should be changed in Wikipedia or the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki in this situation, despite both of us making mistakes on their behalf across different encyclopedias. Since I pledge to improve as an editor on both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires, I hope to work with the Oversighter on how to best apply the Wikipedia policy on to the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki in the near future. Since I pledge to rectify this situation as a former Bureaucrat of the ''Age of Empires'' wiki, I believe that my rights at the Age of Empires wiki should '''NOT''' be changed in this particular situation. ===Should the CheckUser be demoted?=== ====No==== #Although it is likely that the CheckUser made some errors on their behalf with myself, the CheckUser was only doing their job to determine whether or not I have ''ABUSIVELY'' used multiple accounts. Although I'm certain that both of us have made some flaws in regards to application of different procedures or protocols, I have no significant grudge against the CheckUser, since whoever checked my account was simply doing their job. However, there are important points I would like to make: ##I have, inadvertently, saved a file containing an unblock request for both CubeSat4U & Piano410. Before diving deep into the details, I would like to comment that the job of the CheckUser was there to simply to prove that I have used accounts abusively, & determine whether or not there was long term abuse for both accounts. There was no significant issue for both accounts I have used in the past since the evidence for using both accounts abusively was nonexistent, only until know. However, '''breaching my computer, searching for my most atrocious & important files is considered unacceptable''' per the privacy policy of the CheckUser. Despite making this mistake, someone inadvertently removed the CheckUser rights of @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]. Although it is likely that the Bureaucrat made that decision simply to do their job, I want to request CheckUser rights back to @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]. It is for this reason that I '''SUPPORT''' @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s promotion to CheckUser rights. Most importantly, both of us are interested in conducting Sockpuppet Investigations for Wikipedia in the near future. Having learned much from @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s performance, activity & willingness to help me redeem myself implies that both of are interested in collaborating together. Although these are good qualities for a CheckUser to have, these are also good qualities that are certainly expected for an administrator working for Wikipedia. ##This may be an opinion, but it might be best for all CheckUsers such as @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] to only use the tool on Wikipedia unless there is a severe case of sockpuppetry & shouldn't be used to ''spy'' on other accounts inappropriately on other encyclopedias. That would count as abusing the CheckUser ability. Whoever got affected by this ''spying'' should have all rights & editing privileges back. Furthermore, if a Sockpuppet Investigation is needed, there '''Must''' be evidence for that violation. ###This can be done by using the ''Duck Test''. Despite some possible inaccuracies & possible loopholes, this test proved to be extremely reliable on accounts that are clearly dedicated to trolling. I find this strategy to be most effective & efficient against trolls or vandals who are willing to create numerous accounts. The vast majority of these 100% trolling/vandalizing accounts have similar names. Despite the test being seemingly random, there is a distinct pattern that can be analyzed by simply examining the text & characters inside the username of someone's account. This is probably the result of a technique known as random sampling or random analysis. I'm not familiar with the technical & scientific details about the CheckUser ability, so this is just pure speculation. Even if someone doesn't know what a CheckUser is or what their purpose is, they can start to get an idea here. I myself, have conducted this test on several occasions, & it worked remarkably well to my surprise. Just using that test singlehandedly wiped out all accounts that are 100% hellbent on trolling & vandalism, as indicated in the Candy Crush wiki. ###I have heard of the elephant test, which could theoretically be used, but it is less useful, since I find that test to be more focused on jumping into to conclusions rather than an actual test to be used on trolls or vandals. I think this is what happened back to the folks at the ''Age of Empires'' wiki & Wikipedia, where I have found folks like [[User:UnofficialGameExpert78|UnofficialGameExpert78]] & [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] who seemed to have disappeared without a trace. It is for this reason that I would like to ''delete'' my suggested ''spider test'' where this would allow the CheckUser to essentially jumping into conclusions about which sockpuppeting troll/vandal was which. This can lead to '''VERY''' dangerous consequences, as mentioned beforehand since it could result in the CheckUser getting demoted. This could result in a terrifying situation where the CheckUser can just wreak havoc & block everyone at will, including Bureaucrats for example. There is a possibility, that is this reason of the overpowerful CheckUser ability where anyone could get blocked without evidence. Understanding the CheckUser tool & how powerful it can be should be made absolutely mandatory for all good faith contributors in order to minimize collateral damage which is something I'm interested in, but of course I don't really have much time for that. Having analyzed the situation at hand, it is in my opinion that I Piano410 should '''NOT''' be considered as an abusing sockmaster or sockpuppet for the purpose of destroying Wikipedia or the Age of Empires wiki but rather someone who could contribute to great effect across both Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. It is for this reason that I should grant another try in rewriting my '''Block Lift Request'''. As a result, Piano410 should '''NOT''' be blocked & should attempt to rewrite the block lift on behalf of the alternative account CubeSat4U. Note that this hypothetical block lift, is just a ticket to prove why I consider myself to be a generally good faith contributor, so thank you very much for considering my analysis of the situation for Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. Please don't rush yourselves when evaluating my position. For those of you who are quick to jump into conclusions, I figure this would certainly be an interesting read. For some reason, I would like to request the status quo to be imposed prior to my proposed block lift, since I have witnessed counterproductive activity happening to both ''Age of Empires'' wiki & Wikipedia. If there are any questions why I should rewrite my block lift appeal, I would happy to answer your following questions. Thanks all, for your tremendous patience in reading this seemingly lengthy proposal. And of course, happy editing! '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=:::@[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]: You're the epitome of a true genius & a master Wikipedian! However, I would like to apologize for my previous conduct in ''Imaginary Trolling''. I probably shouldn't have fooled a CheckUser in the 1st place & requested your advice. However, I couldn't help but discover something strange & disturbing happening to both Wikipedia & [http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity The Age of Empires Wiki] while I'm gone & absent here. I believe that reverting back to the status quo seems to be best. Consequently, I should probably rewrite my block lift request to avoid further disruption. However, this does not mean that Piano410 should be blocked, since it is up to us as a community to rectify this problem as a whole, to ensure that such a thing were to never happen again. Of great importance is that I want to rectify this problem immediately, since it is my responsibility as a former Bureaucrat of Age of Empires wiki to regain the trust of the entire community. However, before doing so, I would like to take a short break from contributing for a while because my parents are complaining that I have not yet prepared for graduate school. I need time off to prepare for a GRE entrance exam, which is a requirement for some graduate schools. Most importantly, my parents are especially angry at my laziness being on the computer all day, since I still have yet to find myself a sustainable career. I come from an Asian background, so you guys probably get an idea of the strange situation I'm currently in which is neither good or bad. You can probably tell that I have been pretty mad & annoyed...but forget about madness. Lets just focus on the '''REAL''' problem. ===Should the Oversighter on Wikipedia be demoted?=== ====No==== #For example, the unblock request for both [[User:Piano410|Piano410]] & [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] had been removed suspiciously by an [[Wikipedia:Oversight|Oversighter]]. While I agree that censorship is reasonable under most circumstances, such removal of material '''WITHOUT''' horizontal slashes <s>like this</s> is utterly unacceptable. There are also no concrete evidence of a copyright violation in both of these messages I have sent you, since none of these have been crafted by any corporation or any outside entity as both Wikia & Wikipedia have a Free Use License, in which information copied from both sites can be copied but credit must be given. Although it can be argued that I should've provided a citation, such a policy currently doesn't exist in the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. Furthermore, any information posted onto both Wikipedia & Wikia are under free license, so anyone can use it for free as long as credit is given. This means that any troll or vandal can use my block as an example on how to redeem their editing privileges! I was able realize that such a feat can be pretty remarkable, even someone as insignificant as I am. As the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki is a sub-branch of Wikia & oversaw by their staff, such censorship is unreasonable in my opinion. Although it is likely that the Oversighter made an error on their behalf, under which the user may be susceptible to demotion, I can expect the user to have tremendous amount of experience under their belt, likely having censored countless number of copyright violations during their tenure. It is for this reason that I'm taking a '''Neutral''' position on behalf of the Oversighter, in regards to this decision & whoever censored my unblock request shouldn't be demoted for this reason. #Another reason why my unblock request was removed, was likely because I have overlooked the importance of verifiability as a former Bureaucrat of the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki. I failed to give credit to the Anon editor who was the one crafted my unblock request. However, anything published in both Wikia & Wikipedia are free as long as I give credit to the creator of the unblock request, which happened be me as an Anon user. Having confirmed that the Anon editor is me by posting this message, I should have access to the unblock request immediately. Furthermore, there are no copyright violations on both unblock requests. This is likely an error on behalf of the Oversighter who made that decision. Although this policy currently does not exist at the ''Age of Empires'' wiki, if I were to remain Bureaucrat, I would try my best to rectify this problem immediately by collaborating with the Oversighter who likely had made a mistake as well when removing the unblock request. Again, whoever made the decision should keep their rights. It is for this reason that I'm currently taking a '''Neutral''' position on behalf of the Oversighter. Both Me & the Oversighter have made their own mistakes on their behalf. Despite making these mistakes, I'm certain that both of us can improve as editors, & I hope we can collaborate together on how to improve both Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki, with myself as Bureaucrat & an unknown Oversighter on both wikis. Since I have not made any personal attacks against the Oversighter, & remained patient during this discussion, it is for this reason that I'm currently taking a '''Neutral''' position towards my demotion or promotion. Most importantly, community consensus must be reached in order to promote or demote someone, so neither myself as Bureaucrat or the Oversighter who made the decision should be changed in Wikipedia or the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki in this situation, despite both of us making mistakes on their behalf across different encyclopedias. Since I pledge to improve as an editor on both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires, I hope to work with the Oversighter on how to best apply the Wikipedia policy on to the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki in the near future. Since I pledge to rectify this situation as a former Bureaucrat of the ''Age of Empires'' wiki, I believe that my rights at the Age of Empires wiki should '''NOT''' be changed in this particular situation. ===Should the CheckUser be demoted?=== ====No==== #Although it is likely that the CheckUser made some errors on their behalf with myself, the CheckUser was only doing their job to determine whether or not I have ''ABUSIVELY'' used multiple accounts. Although I'm certain that both of us have made some flaws in regards to application of different procedures or protocols, I have no significant grudge against the CheckUser, since whoever checked my account was simply doing their job. However, there are important points I would like to make: ##I have, inadvertently, saved a file containing an unblock request for both CubeSat4U & Piano410. Before diving deep into the details, I would like to comment that the job of the CheckUser was there to simply to prove that I have used accounts abusively, & determine whether or not there was long term abuse for both accounts. There was no significant issue for both accounts I have used in the past since the evidence for using both accounts abusively was nonexistent, only until know. However, '''breaching my computer, searching for my most atrocious & important files is considered unacceptable''' per the privacy policy of the CheckUser. Despite making this mistake, someone inadvertently removed the CheckUser rights of @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]. Although it is likely that the Bureaucrat made that decision simply to do their job, I want to request CheckUser rights back to @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]. It is for this reason that I '''SUPPORT''' @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s promotion to CheckUser rights. Most importantly, both of us are interested in conducting Sockpuppet Investigations for Wikipedia in the near future. Having learned much from @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s performance, activity & willingness to help me redeem myself implies that both of are interested in collaborating together. Although these are good qualities for a CheckUser to have, these are also good qualities that are certainly expected for an administrator working for Wikipedia. ##This may be an opinion, but it might be best for all CheckUsers such as @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] to only use the tool on Wikipedia unless there is a severe case of sockpuppetry & shouldn't be used to ''spy'' on other accounts inappropriately on other encyclopedias. That would count as abusing the CheckUser ability. Whoever got affected by this ''spying'' should have all rights & editing privileges back. Furthermore, if a Sockpuppet Investigation is needed, there '''Must''' be evidence for that violation. ###This can be done by using the ''Duck Test''. Despite some possible inaccuracies & possible loopholes, this test proved to be extremely reliable on accounts that are clearly dedicated to trolling. I find this strategy to be most effective & efficient against trolls or vandals who are willing to create numerous accounts. The vast majority of these 100% trolling/vandalizing accounts have similar names. Despite the test being seemingly random, there is a distinct pattern that can be analyzed by simply examining the text & characters inside the username of someone's account. This is probably the result of a technique known as random sampling or random analysis. I'm not familiar with the technical & scientific details about the CheckUser ability, so this is just pure speculation. Even if someone doesn't know what a CheckUser is or what their purpose is, they can start to get an idea here. I myself, have conducted this test on several occasions, & it worked remarkably well to my surprise. Just using that test singlehandedly wiped out all accounts that are 100% hellbent on trolling & vandalism, as indicated in the Candy Crush wiki. ###I have heard of the elephant test, which could theoretically be used, but it is less useful, since I find that test to be more focused on jumping into to conclusions rather than an actual test to be used on trolls or vandals. I think this is what happened back to the folks at the ''Age of Empires'' wiki & Wikipedia, where I have found folks like [[User:UnofficialGameExpert78|UnofficialGameExpert78]] & [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] who seemed to have disappeared without a trace. It is for this reason that I would like to ''delete'' my suggested ''spider test'' where this would allow the CheckUser to essentially jumping into conclusions about which sockpuppeting troll/vandal was which. This can lead to '''VERY''' dangerous consequences, as mentioned beforehand since it could result in the CheckUser getting demoted. This could result in a terrifying situation where the CheckUser can just wreak havoc & block everyone at will, including Bureaucrats for example. There is a possibility, that is this reason of the overpowerful CheckUser ability where anyone could get blocked without evidence. Understanding the CheckUser tool & how powerful it can be should be made absolutely mandatory for all good faith contributors in order to minimize collateral damage which is something I'm interested in, but of course I don't really have much time for that. Having analyzed the situation at hand, it is in my opinion that I Piano410 should '''NOT''' be considered as an abusing sockmaster or sockpuppet for the purpose of destroying Wikipedia or the Age of Empires wiki but rather someone who could contribute to great effect across both Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. It is for this reason that I should grant another try in rewriting my '''Block Lift Request'''. As a result, Piano410 should '''NOT''' be blocked & should attempt to rewrite the block lift on behalf of the alternative account CubeSat4U. Note that this hypothetical block lift, is just a ticket to prove why I consider myself to be a generally good faith contributor, so thank you very much for considering my analysis of the situation for Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. Please don't rush yourselves when evaluating my position. For those of you who are quick to jump into conclusions, I figure this would certainly be an interesting read. For some reason, I would like to request the status quo to be imposed prior to my proposed block lift, since I have witnessed counterproductive activity happening to both ''Age of Empires'' wiki & Wikipedia. If there are any questions why I should rewrite my block lift appeal, I would happy to answer your following questions. Thanks all, for your tremendous patience in reading this seemingly lengthy proposal. And of course, happy editing! '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=:::@[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]: You're the epitome of a true genius & a master Wikipedian! However, I would like to apologize for my previous conduct in ''Imaginary Trolling''. I probably shouldn't have fooled a CheckUser in the 1st place & requested your advice. However, I couldn't help but discover something strange & disturbing happening to both Wikipedia & [http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity The Age of Empires Wiki] while I'm gone & absent here. I believe that reverting back to the status quo seems to be best. Consequently, I should probably rewrite my block lift request to avoid further disruption. However, this does not mean that Piano410 should be blocked, since it is up to us as a community to rectify this problem as a whole, to ensure that such a thing were to never happen again. Of great importance is that I want to rectify this problem immediately, since it is my responsibility as a former Bureaucrat of Age of Empires wiki to regain the trust of the entire community. However, before doing so, I would like to take a short break from contributing for a while because my parents are complaining that I have not yet prepared for graduate school. I need time off to prepare for a GRE entrance exam, which is a requirement for some graduate schools. Most importantly, my parents are especially angry at my laziness being on the computer all day, since I still have yet to find myself a sustainable career. I come from an Asian background, so you guys probably get an idea of the strange situation I'm currently in which is neither good or bad. You can probably tell that I have been pretty mad & annoyed...but forget about madness. Lets just focus on the '''REAL''' problem. ===Should the Oversighter on Wikipedia be demoted?=== ====No==== #For example, the unblock request for both [[User:Piano410|Piano410]] & [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] had been removed suspiciously by an [[Wikipedia:Oversight|Oversighter]]. While I agree that censorship is reasonable under most circumstances, such removal of material '''WITHOUT''' horizontal slashes <s>like this</s> is utterly unacceptable. There are also no concrete evidence of a copyright violation in both of these messages I have sent you, since none of these have been crafted by any corporation or any outside entity as both Wikia & Wikipedia have a Free Use License, in which information copied from both sites can be copied but credit must be given. Although it can be argued that I should've provided a citation, such a policy currently doesn't exist in the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. Furthermore, any information posted onto both Wikipedia & Wikia are under free license, so anyone can use it for free as long as credit is given. This means that any troll or vandal can use my block as an example on how to redeem their editing privileges! I was able realize that such a feat can be pretty remarkable, even someone as insignificant as I am. As the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki is a sub-branch of Wikia & oversaw by their staff, such censorship is unreasonable in my opinion. Although it is likely that the Oversighter made an error on their behalf, under which the user may be susceptible to demotion, I can expect the user to have tremendous amount of experience under their belt, likely having censored countless number of copyright violations during their tenure. It is for this reason that I'm taking a '''Neutral''' position on behalf of the Oversighter, in regards to this decision & whoever censored my unblock request shouldn't be demoted for this reason. #Another reason why my unblock request was removed, was likely because I have overlooked the importance of verifiability as a former Bureaucrat of the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki. I failed to give credit to the Anon editor who was the one crafted my unblock request. However, anything published in both Wikia & Wikipedia are free as long as I give credit to the creator of the unblock request, which happened be me as an Anon user. Having confirmed that the Anon editor is me by posting this message, I should have access to the unblock request immediately. Furthermore, there are no copyright violations on both unblock requests. This is likely an error on behalf of the Oversighter who made that decision. Although this policy currently does not exist at the ''Age of Empires'' wiki, if I were to remain Bureaucrat, I would try my best to rectify this problem immediately by collaborating with the Oversighter who likely had made a mistake as well when removing the unblock request. Again, whoever made the decision should keep their rights. It is for this reason that I'm currently taking a '''Neutral''' position on behalf of the Oversighter. Both Me & the Oversighter have made their own mistakes on their behalf. Despite making these mistakes, I'm certain that both of us can improve as editors, & I hope we can collaborate together on how to improve both Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki, with myself as Bureaucrat & an unknown Oversighter on both wikis. Since I have not made any personal attacks against the Oversighter, & remained patient during this discussion, it is for this reason that I'm currently taking a '''Neutral''' position towards my demotion or promotion. Most importantly, community consensus must be reached in order to promote or demote someone, so neither myself as Bureaucrat or the Oversighter who made the decision should be changed in Wikipedia or the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki in this situation, despite both of us making mistakes on their behalf across different encyclopedias. Since I pledge to improve as an editor on both Wikipedia & the Age of Empires, I hope to work with the Oversighter on how to best apply the Wikipedia policy on to the ''Age of Empires'' Wiki in the near future. Since I pledge to rectify this situation as a former Bureaucrat of the ''Age of Empires'' wiki, I believe that my rights at the Age of Empires wiki should '''NOT''' be changed in this particular situation. ===Should the CheckUser be demoted?=== ====No==== #Although it is likely that the CheckUser made some errors on their behalf with myself, the CheckUser was only doing their job to determine whether or not I have ''ABUSIVELY'' used multiple accounts. Although I'm certain that both of us have made some flaws in regards to application of different procedures or protocols, I have no significant grudge against the CheckUser, since whoever checked my account was simply doing their job. However, there are important points I would like to make: ##I have, inadvertently, saved a file containing an unblock request for both CubeSat4U & Piano410. Before diving deep into the details, I would like to comment that the job of the CheckUser was there to simply to prove that I have used accounts abusively, & determine whether or not there was long term abuse for both accounts. There was no significant issue for both accounts I have used in the past since the evidence for using both accounts abusively was nonexistent, only until know. However, '''breaching my computer, searching for my most atrocious & important files is considered unacceptable''' per the privacy policy of the CheckUser. Despite making this mistake, someone inadvertently removed the CheckUser rights of @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]. Although it is likely that the Bureaucrat made that decision simply to do their job, I want to request CheckUser rights back to @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]. It is for this reason that I '''SUPPORT''' @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s promotion to CheckUser rights. Most importantly, both of us are interested in conducting Sockpuppet Investigations for Wikipedia in the near future. Having learned much from @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s performance, activity & willingness to help me redeem myself implies that both of are interested in collaborating together. Although these are good qualities for a CheckUser to have, these are also good qualities that are certainly expected for an administrator working for Wikipedia. ##This may be an opinion, but it might be best for all CheckUsers such as @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] to only use the tool on Wikipedia unless there is a severe case of sockpuppetry & shouldn't be used to ''spy'' on other accounts inappropriately on other encyclopedias. That would count as abusing the CheckUser ability. Whoever got affected by this ''spying'' should have all rights & editing privileges back. Furthermore, if a Sockpuppet Investigation is needed, there '''Must''' be evidence for that violation. ###This can be done by using the ''Duck Test''. Despite some possible inaccuracies & possible loopholes, this test proved to be extremely reliable on accounts that are clearly dedicated to trolling. I find this strategy to be most effective & efficient against trolls or vandals who are willing to create numerous accounts. The vast majority of these 100% trolling/vandalizing accounts have similar names. Despite the test being seemingly random, there is a distinct pattern that can be analyzed by simply examining the text & characters inside the username of someone's account. This is probably the result of a technique known as random sampling or random analysis. I'm not familiar with the technical & scientific details about the CheckUser ability, so this is just pure speculation. Even if someone doesn't know what a CheckUser is or what their purpose is, they can start to get an idea here. I myself, have conducted this test on several occasions, & it worked remarkably well to my surprise. Just using that test singlehandedly wiped out all accounts that are 100% hellbent on trolling & vandalism, as indicated in the Candy Crush wiki. ###I have heard of the elephant test, which could theoretically be used, but it is less useful, since I find that test to be more focused on jumping into to conclusions rather than an actual test to be used on trolls or vandals. I think this is what happened back to the folks at the ''Age of Empires'' wiki & Wikipedia, where I have found folks like [[User:UnofficialGameExpert78|UnofficialGameExpert78]] & [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] who seemed to have disappeared without a trace. It is for this reason that I would like to ''delete'' my suggested ''spider test'' where this would allow the CheckUser to essentially jumping into conclusions about which sockpuppeting troll/vandal was which. This can lead to '''VERY''' dangerous consequences, as mentioned beforehand since it could result in the CheckUser getting demoted. This could result in a terrifying situation where the CheckUser can just wreak havoc & block everyone at will, including Bureaucrats for example. There is a possibility, that is this reason of the overpowerful CheckUser ability where anyone could get blocked without evidence. Understanding the CheckUser tool & how powerful it can be should be made absolutely mandatory for all good faith contributors in order to minimize collateral damage which is something I'm interested in, but of course I don't really have much time for that. Having analyzed the situation at hand, it is in my opinion that I Piano410 should '''NOT''' be considered as an abusing sockmaster or sockpuppet for the purpose of destroying Wikipedia or the Age of Empires wiki but rather someone who could contribute to great effect across both Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. It is for this reason that I should grant another try in rewriting my '''Block Lift Request'''. As a result, Piano410 should '''NOT''' be blocked & should attempt to rewrite the block lift on behalf of the alternative account CubeSat4U. Note that this hypothetical block lift, is just a ticket to prove why I consider myself to be a generally good faith contributor, so thank you very much for considering my analysis of the situation for Wikipedia & the ''Age of Empires'' wiki. Please don't rush yourselves when evaluating my position. For those of you who are quick to jump into conclusions, I figure this would certainly be an interesting read. For some reason, I would like to request the status quo to be imposed prior to my proposed block lift, since I have witnessed counterproductive activity happening to both ''Age of Empires'' wiki & Wikipedia. If there are any questions why I should rewrite my block lift appeal, I would happy to answer your following questions. Thanks all, for your tremendous patience in reading this seemingly lengthy proposal. And of course, happy editing! '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

~~November 2017~~
~~Unblock request #2~~

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Piano410 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@TonyBallioni
Thanks for the warnings, or notices. Before continuing, I would like to apologize for being redundant. It should be our duty as editors to avoid redundancies as much as possible on Wikipedia & inform other editors the benefits for doing so, as our priority should always be Quality ≥ Quantity. Just to provide some background, I sent the following message on @Yunshui's talk page titled Possible RfA?:

I noticed that you directed one of my accounts to the RfA. Should I go apply? I don't feel totally confident about that yet. Maybe when I have over reached 500 or 1000 edits? Despite having experience editing & using Wikipedia, I figure that having extended confirmed privileges first on this account would be useful. It has been a while since logging on to this site. In this way, perhaps that would allow me to edit or create more articles? This account I'm currently using is almost 6-7 years old! I would like to request this right first, as I'm not sure I have this right yet. I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon!
Pianos 4U 10:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate if guys help place I will place Template:Doppelganger on TesLiszt, CubeSat4U & Al Legorhythm. However, if I have plans to use CubeSat4U as a bot account, does this template still apply, or do I just use the bot template? Keep in mind that I'm just talking about the future, not right now. ~~Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon!~~
Also, I would like to request a possible name change from Piano410 to Piano95. I believe it is about time that user page & user name should be changed in light of recent events around here. Additionally, I would also like to request a name change from X~Calibur95 to Piano95. From what I have heard, having access to multiple admin accounts is not allowed. I would like this to be done immediately, since that would avoid possible association with @Casliber who likely have used a similar username based on some mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously. Most importantly, Casliber has been here much longer than I am. I heard that Casliber is still a really valuable contributor with much experience on their hands, so it would be a shame to lose their contributions on the spot for false accusations of sockpuppetry.
I previously have asked @Ajraddatz about a name change many years ago, but never got back to that. A fun fact for you was that the when X~Calibur95 was created roughly the same year this account was created, I did not know anyone or anything with a username based on a random mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously. As a matter of fact, it is in my opinion that @Casliber should be renamed to the ORIGINAL @Excalibur, since I firmly believe the user is more legendary than I am, having contributed to Wikipedia much longer than this account. name; @Casliber. It is in my opinion that @Casliber was the first random person or thing to fall from the sky anyway (if science is too hard, read this instead). It was only recently when I discovered someone using the username @Casliber. That thought didn't occur to me at the time when X~Calibur95 was created. I chose a different username, since I heard that Wikia was NOT associated with Wikipedia at that time. Most importantly, content creation on Wikia seem to be easier on Wikipedia, so it would be great of everyone else there would have their block lifted for false sockpuppetry allegations there as well in addition to folks here on Wikipedia.
As a matter of fact, in addition to lifting this block on my account, I would like to request ever single admin who has been blocked for false sockpuppetry allegations to be immediately lifted too. Just having CheckUsers around editing Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very helpful in my opinion.

~~Pianos 4U~~

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] Thanks for the warnings, or notices. Before continuing, I would like to apologize for being redundant. It should be our duty as editors to avoid redundancies as much as possible on Wikipedia & inform other editors the benefits for doing so, as our priority should always be ''Quality ≥ Quantity''. Just to provide some background, I sent the following message on @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s [[User talk:Yunshui|talk page]] titled '''Possible RfA?''': :I noticed that you directed one of my accounts to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]]. Should I go apply? I don't feel totally confident about that yet. Maybe when I have <s>over<s> reached 500 <s>or 1000<s> edits? Despite having experience editing & using Wikipedia, I figure that having [[Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extendedconfirmed|extended confirmed privileges]] first on this account would be useful. It has been a while since logging on to this site. In this way, perhaps that would allow me to edit or create more articles? This account I'm currently using is almost 6-7 years old! I would like to request this right first, as I'm not sure I have this right yet. I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' 10:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I would really appreciate if guys help place <s>I will<s> place [[Template:Doppelganger]] on [[User:TesLiszt|TesLiszt]], [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] & [[User:Al Legorhythm|Al Legorhythm]]. <s>However, if I have plans to use [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] as a bot account, does this template still apply, or do I just use the bot template? Keep in mind that I'm just talking about the future, not right now.<s> Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! Also, I would like to request a possible name change from [[User:Piano410|Piano410]] to Piano95. I believe it is about time that user page & user name should be changed in light of recent events around here. Additionally, I would also like to request a name change from [http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:X~Calibur95 X~Calibur95 to Piano95]. From what I have heard, having access to multiple admin accounts is not allowed. I would like this to be done immediately, since that would avoid possible association with @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] who likely have used a similar username based on some mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously. Most importantly, Casliber has been here much longer than I am. I heard that Casliber is still a really valuable contributor with much experience on their hands, so it would be a shame to lose their contributions on the spot for false accusations of sockpuppetry. I previously have asked @[[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] about a name change many years ago, but never got back to that. A fun fact for you was that the when '''X~Calibur95''' was created roughly the same year this account was created, [http://www.cracked.com/article_20262_the-7-most-bizarre-objects-to-ever-fall-from-sky.html I did not know anyone or anything with a username based on a random mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously]. As a matter of fact, it is in my opinion that @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] should be renamed to the '''ORIGINAL''' <s>@[[User:Excalibur|Excalibur]], since I firmly believe the user is more legendary than I am, having contributed to Wikipedia much longer than this account.<s> name; @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]]. It is in my opinion that @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257984366_Chicxulub_Crater_A_possible_CretaceousTertiary_boundary_impact_crater_on_the_Yucatn_Peninsula_Mexico was the first random person or thing to fall from the sky anyway] (if science is too hard, [https://www.space.com/19681-dinosaur-killing-asteroid-chicxulub-crater.html read this instead]). It was only recently when I discovered someone using the username @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]]. That thought didn't occur to me at the time when X~Calibur95 was created. I chose a different username, since I heard that Wikia was '''NOT''' associated with Wikipedia at that time. Most importantly, content creation on Wikia seem to be easier on Wikipedia, so it would be great of everyone else there would have their block lifted for false sockpuppetry allegations there as well in addition to folks here on Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, in addition to lifting this block on my account, I would like to request ever single admin who has been blocked for false sockpuppetry allegations to be immediately lifted too. Just having CheckUsers around editing Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very helpful in my opinion. '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] Thanks for the warnings, or notices. Before continuing, I would like to apologize for being redundant. It should be our duty as editors to avoid redundancies as much as possible on Wikipedia & inform other editors the benefits for doing so, as our priority should always be ''Quality ≥ Quantity''. Just to provide some background, I sent the following message on @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s [[User talk:Yunshui|talk page]] titled '''Possible RfA?''': :I noticed that you directed one of my accounts to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]]. Should I go apply? I don't feel totally confident about that yet. Maybe when I have <s>over<s> reached 500 <s>or 1000<s> edits? Despite having experience editing & using Wikipedia, I figure that having [[Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extendedconfirmed|extended confirmed privileges]] first on this account would be useful. It has been a while since logging on to this site. In this way, perhaps that would allow me to edit or create more articles? This account I'm currently using is almost 6-7 years old! I would like to request this right first, as I'm not sure I have this right yet. I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' 10:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I would really appreciate if guys help place <s>I will<s> place [[Template:Doppelganger]] on [[User:TesLiszt|TesLiszt]], [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] & [[User:Al Legorhythm|Al Legorhythm]]. <s>However, if I have plans to use [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] as a bot account, does this template still apply, or do I just use the bot template? Keep in mind that I'm just talking about the future, not right now.<s> Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! Also, I would like to request a possible name change from [[User:Piano410|Piano410]] to Piano95. I believe it is about time that user page & user name should be changed in light of recent events around here. Additionally, I would also like to request a name change from [http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:X~Calibur95 X~Calibur95 to Piano95]. From what I have heard, having access to multiple admin accounts is not allowed. I would like this to be done immediately, since that would avoid possible association with @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] who likely have used a similar username based on some mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously. Most importantly, Casliber has been here much longer than I am. I heard that Casliber is still a really valuable contributor with much experience on their hands, so it would be a shame to lose their contributions on the spot for false accusations of sockpuppetry. I previously have asked @[[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] about a name change many years ago, but never got back to that. A fun fact for you was that the when '''X~Calibur95''' was created roughly the same year this account was created, [http://www.cracked.com/article_20262_the-7-most-bizarre-objects-to-ever-fall-from-sky.html I did not know anyone or anything with a username based on a random mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously]. As a matter of fact, it is in my opinion that @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] should be renamed to the '''ORIGINAL''' <s>@[[User:Excalibur|Excalibur]], since I firmly believe the user is more legendary than I am, having contributed to Wikipedia much longer than this account.<s> name; @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]]. It is in my opinion that @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257984366_Chicxulub_Crater_A_possible_CretaceousTertiary_boundary_impact_crater_on_the_Yucatn_Peninsula_Mexico was the first random person or thing to fall from the sky anyway] (if science is too hard, [https://www.space.com/19681-dinosaur-killing-asteroid-chicxulub-crater.html read this instead]). It was only recently when I discovered someone using the username @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]]. That thought didn't occur to me at the time when X~Calibur95 was created. I chose a different username, since I heard that Wikia was '''NOT''' associated with Wikipedia at that time. Most importantly, content creation on Wikia seem to be easier on Wikipedia, so it would be great of everyone else there would have their block lifted for false sockpuppetry allegations there as well in addition to folks here on Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, in addition to lifting this block on my account, I would like to request ever single admin who has been blocked for false sockpuppetry allegations to be immediately lifted too. Just having CheckUsers around editing Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very helpful in my opinion. '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] Thanks for the warnings, or notices. Before continuing, I would like to apologize for being redundant. It should be our duty as editors to avoid redundancies as much as possible on Wikipedia & inform other editors the benefits for doing so, as our priority should always be ''Quality ≥ Quantity''. Just to provide some background, I sent the following message on @[[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]'s [[User talk:Yunshui|talk page]] titled '''Possible RfA?''': :I noticed that you directed one of my accounts to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]]. Should I go apply? I don't feel totally confident about that yet. Maybe when I have <s>over<s> reached 500 <s>or 1000<s> edits? Despite having experience editing & using Wikipedia, I figure that having [[Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extendedconfirmed|extended confirmed privileges]] first on this account would be useful. It has been a while since logging on to this site. In this way, perhaps that would allow me to edit or create more articles? This account I'm currently using is almost 6-7 years old! I would like to request this right first, as I'm not sure I have this right yet. I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' 10:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) I would really appreciate if guys help place <s>I will<s> place [[Template:Doppelganger]] on [[User:TesLiszt|TesLiszt]], [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] & [[User:Al Legorhythm|Al Legorhythm]]. <s>However, if I have plans to use [[User:CubeSat4U|CubeSat4U]] as a bot account, does this template still apply, or do I just use the bot template? Keep in mind that I'm just talking about the future, not right now.<s> Thanks, & hope to hear from you soon! Also, I would like to request a possible name change from [[User:Piano410|Piano410]] to Piano95. I believe it is about time that user page & user name should be changed in light of recent events around here. Additionally, I would also like to request a name change from [http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:X~Calibur95 X~Calibur95 to Piano95]. From what I have heard, having access to multiple admin accounts is not allowed. I would like this to be done immediately, since that would avoid possible association with @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] who likely have used a similar username based on some mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously. Most importantly, Casliber has been here much longer than I am. I heard that Casliber is still a really valuable contributor with much experience on their hands, so it would be a shame to lose their contributions on the spot for false accusations of sockpuppetry. I previously have asked @[[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] about a name change many years ago, but never got back to that. A fun fact for you was that the when '''X~Calibur95''' was created roughly the same year this account was created, [http://www.cracked.com/article_20262_the-7-most-bizarre-objects-to-ever-fall-from-sky.html I did not know anyone or anything with a username based on a random mythical object that fell from the sky spontaneously]. As a matter of fact, it is in my opinion that @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] should be renamed to the '''ORIGINAL''' <s>@[[User:Excalibur|Excalibur]], since I firmly believe the user is more legendary than I am, having contributed to Wikipedia much longer than this account.<s> name; @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]]. It is in my opinion that @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257984366_Chicxulub_Crater_A_possible_CretaceousTertiary_boundary_impact_crater_on_the_Yucatn_Peninsula_Mexico was the first random person or thing to fall from the sky anyway] (if science is too hard, [https://www.space.com/19681-dinosaur-killing-asteroid-chicxulub-crater.html read this instead]). It was only recently when I discovered someone using the username @[[User:Casliber|Casliber]]. That thought didn't occur to me at the time when X~Calibur95 was created. I chose a different username, since I heard that Wikia was '''NOT''' associated with Wikipedia at that time. Most importantly, content creation on Wikia seem to be easier on Wikipedia, so it would be great of everyone else there would have their block lifted for false sockpuppetry allegations there as well in addition to folks here on Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, in addition to lifting this block on my account, I would like to request ever single admin who has been blocked for false sockpuppetry allegations to be immediately lifted too. Just having CheckUsers around editing Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very helpful in my opinion. '''[[User:Piano410|Pianos]][[User talk: Piano410|4U]]''' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You are a blocked user on another account, and have admitted as such. I've indefinitely blocked this account because we don't allow blocked users to evade their blocks by using other accounts. Another admin will review your appeal, but for what its worth, I'm recommending that they revoke your talk page access: you're clearly not using it to make a good faith appeal either above or here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[ALA-1] "Caladenia gracillima". Atlas of Living Australia. Retrieved 5 April 2017.

[1]