User talk:Cthwikia

Welcome!

Hello, Cthwikia! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Chris Alexander (editor). Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It goes beyond not working or being reapaired. There is no way to repair the link since the site itself is completely gone.Cthwikia (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Please read WP:DEADLINK. Do not remove dead links. Dead links can sometimes be recovered, and the fact that a valid, verifiable citation once existed is good enough to show that the statement is supported. If you continue to remove dead links, you can be blocked for disruption. Please do not do this. Instead, try to find a working archive link of these articles. I check the Wayback Machine, but it seems as though a robots.txt is blocking their archival service. Maybe another internet archival service has archived these links. If you wish to tag them with {{dead link}}, that's fine. But you must not remove valid citations that simply no longer load in your browser. This is contrary to WP:KDL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm I being threatened here? Its misleading to put up phantom cites from a defunct website. There is no evidence that these links even existed. Where's the proof? This is very misleading because its simply diverting people to another site (myself included), and i don't like being had or mislead by redirected url's. There is no internet archival site that contains these citations. These citations simply don't exist anymore on any browser. They cannot be recovered because they dont exist anymore. Are you upset because you put those citations up yourself and you can't back these cites anymore or were you involved with the website Fearnet that is no longer active?Cthwikia (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can make as many accusations as you like. I don't care. The point is that you're violating WP:KDL. If you continue, you can be blocked. That's not a threat; that's a statement of fact. If you disagree with how Wikipedia does things, then raise the issue at WP:VPP or WT:LINKROT. Yes, the entire site is gone, but that's not a good enough reason to remove a valid citation. There are Internet archives that keep old copies of websites available, and sometimes websites come back. If it offends you, then I suggest you try to find an archived copy of the story or tag it with {{dead link}}. I don't really care what you do as long as you don't remove the citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinskinned are we? I figure you have something to do with Fearnet and are upset that its gone. What were you, the webmaster? A contributor? A fan?Cthwikia (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Ummmm..What's going on? Why is there a discussion about me?Cthwikia (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bud Cortman. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time in logged in and recieved a threat stating I'm under some sort of investigation. Could someone explain what I'm being accused off and what exactly I did wrong? I have no idea who Bud Cortman isCthwikia (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cthwikia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. About a month ago I created this account to add information to various pages about horror films. One of the first edits I did was remove some dead links from a defunct website. An editor attacked me and stated I was vandalizing the Wikipedia. After I asked around it turned out that you can't remove dead links but only tag them as such. OK, live and learn. After awhile I got this threat posted on my page that I was under investigation. When I asked what was going on, I was ignored. About a day later I got accused of being someone call Bud Cortman, which I have no clue about. Now I find that I'm supposedly a sockpuppet and have been banned. Well I can assure you I'm not anyone's sockpuppet nor have I done any sort of disruptive editing on my brief stay here. It seems one of the individuals that was accusing me was the editor that threatened me in the first place over the deletion over a dead link and perhaps he has an agenda against me because I accused him of working for the website that was shut down. Is this how the Wikipedia truly works? Where people make up false allegations about you to get you banned because of petty squabbles? I am not multiple people nor have I did any disruptive editing during my tenure here, and I would appreciate not being punished for something that I didn't do. I don't think its fair to be blocked without any proof whatsoever just going by fraudlent allegations posted by an editor who seems to have an axe to grind with me. If i'm not going to be unblocked please supply me with the evidence that I have been a disruptive editor or that my IP number is the same as the person I'm being accused off being. Thank YouCthwikia (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The sock puppet investigation referenced in the block log provides significant evidence of sock or meat puppetry. The block seems correct. Chillum 01:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

While I am declining this unblock request I will ping the blocking admin @Bbb23: so that the content of your unblock request can be reviewed by him/her as well. Chillum 01:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chillum, the only comment I have is that it is not possible to technically connect this account with another account because there is no checkuser data available for But Cortman, and we generally don't connect named accounts to IPs. To the extent that Cthwikia is ignorant of our policies, it is common to block an editor based on behavioral evidence. Tehcnical evidence is not required. As for abuse, putting anything else aside, accusing other editors of fraud is clearly abusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being blocked for abusing an editor or being someone else? Please explain to me what exactly I did to be accused of being Bud Cortman. Which one of my edits is vandalism? This is completly unjust that I'm being blocked for no evidence whatsoever! Someone makes up a false claim against me. Couldn't supply any evidence and now I'm being blocked. This is beyond ridiculous!Cthwikia (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]