User talk:Thesunshinesate

NO Treats please!

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Ghana". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a clarification of your position at DRN. Would you please respond to the question which I've posed there? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

Hello, I'm Masssly. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ghana 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! —Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 08:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Being that you have already been blocked for edit warring on that article for basically the same thing you are doing now, I suggest you take it up to the admin's if you feel there is a problem, that POV addition you put in about your ethnic group was removed because plain and simply it's a false claim.Thesunshinesate (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we do is that we place a citation needed tag after the text that we feel needs sourcing or extra sourcing if you are in doubt of a singly sourced text. But simply deleting a long-time users good-faith edits that was sourced anyway is not the right way and would always bring about such disputes. It seems to me that you are deliberately preventing the mention of any other ethnic group aside "Ashanti or Akan" in the Ghana article to the extent that you don't feel it is important to acknowledge the history of the most dominant ethnic group in Northern Ghana who make up 17 percent of the Ghana's population. Your edit history is well known to be intended toward populating the article with Akan related content and inclusion of images that have no bearing to the sections in question. And yes my account was blocked once but restored almost immediately in less than half an hour because the admins involved did not think it was fair or necessary on my part, just so you know. It would do us all a lot of good if you spent some time reviewing our policies regularly.—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 11:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghana. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/150.108.30.221, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 17:38, 16 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't understand why I am blocked. I was engaged with another user in an edit dispute over credibility of something he added. I didn't violate 3RR and we both got notices from another admin Dianaa, since then neither of us made a edit, all of of a sudden the other user accused me of being a sock and just for that I get a block? Without any proof or investigation? I don't understand if I got a block solely for edit warring we would have both had blocks, so what am I getting blocked for? it is ridiculous. The same thing happened a few months ago when this other user claimed we were part of a European conspiracy against his people, when he got challenged on his ethnocentric edits and got me and a whole bunch of others spread over three continents investigated and the checkuser confirmed that we were not even related, and he later got blocked for edit warring. Now he says that I am some I.P user and automatically I get a block for 1 week? This is absurd, you are blocking saying "apparently" I might have made an edit. Apparently is not good enough. I really don't understand this. How do you block someone for no reason. I have been working on that article for months. So are you telling me people can get someone to block you simply because they are upset that you've told him/her that they are adding wrong information to articles?Thesunshinesate (talk) 1:50 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

It's very clear that you are 150.108.30.221 (the timing and similar use of language is a dead giveaway), and it looks like you've been using several other accounts as well. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:09, 17 October 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.

Thank you for uploading File:Alek forbes pic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]