User talk:Scaravich105nj

Welcome!

Hello, Scaravich105nj! 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 ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 04:21, 19 April 2015 (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

Scaravich105nj, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi Scaravich105nj!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Sexism. The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.

Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your condescending trolling. Please stick to commenting on content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Look at my reply on talk page. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You complain about sourcing and yet you do this? Come on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Scaravich105nj (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary in particular was sexist and inappropriate. Don't do it again. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wikiisawesome. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Emissions trading seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. wia (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone either has dirt in their eye, or needs a new pair of glasses. -_- Scaravich105nj (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to read their user page again and stop with edits like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to stop babysitting me and watching my edits like I'm some vandal who can't be trusted. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your past contributions, your edits need to be watched. I'm sure I'm not the only one gives them a once over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and check my two most recent edits, Neil. You'll see their completely objective. Scaravich105nj (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding another complaint. What we have here is a self-described conservative who makes a deliberate effort to edit the pages of politicians and then calls me names like liberal when I make an edit that he doesn't like. Scaravich105nj doesn't understand what objectivity or bias is. If he needs to call me names to justify his edits, then he has no business contributing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.32.54 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's been indefinitely blocked, and it was discovered he had a rather large WP:SOCK collection. I don't think you'll be hearing from him again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding how you interact with other users[edit]

After that AN thread I took a look at some of your interactions with other users. Some of it is very troubling, to the point where I felt obligated to apologize on behalf of Wikipedia to a user that you basically screamed at for making an edit that was apparently simply a mistake. I would offfer the following pointers:

Wikipedians should always assume good faith unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. What could be vandalism could also just be ingnorance, or an accident. We assume new users who make inaccurate or problematic edits simply don't know how things work here unless they are obviously being malicious, like adding random obscenities or insults to article content.
Even in cases of obvious vandalism it is never acceptable (or helpful) to insult the vandals, call them names, tell them you "fucking hate vandals" etc. That sort of incivility always makes things worse, it never helps.
Many users use automated tools such as WP:TWINKLE to fight vandalism and warn vandals. You can quickly remove vandalism or other problematic and it offers a wide array of templated warnings, cautions, and notices, allowing you to select the one that is most appropriate for the specifc situation and leaving a clear, concise message that cites whatever Wikipedia policies or guidelines that may be relevant. It saves time and prevents misunderstandings, and of course all the notices are worded in a civil but firm manner.

Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it, since I'm not about to get blocked (I know some people are watching my edits as of now). Scaravich105nj (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015, part 2[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ted Cruz. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Please review the WP:BRD process. Your addition of the McCain material was the Bold edit. It was Reverted. And you have opened a Discussion. But that does not allow you to do a repeated addition of the material. We edit through discussion and consensus. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Steve Symms, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Setting up the paragraph, and adding the editorial "dismal/terrible" description as you did is improper. Symms has had many votes on numerous topics, but we don't go about picking particular ones to make a point or express an opinion even if the votes are reported on by reliable sources. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Champagne, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Small point: This edit added new material, so it was not a minor edit. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued personal attacks and incivility. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (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).

Scaravich105nj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm requesting this unblock request because words cannot express how sorry I am for making personal attacks against other users. Sometimes I'm a bit of a hothead, and that was no different. I will not do it again, and I wont sock puppet either. I haven't puppeted since my block, the other IP's claiming to be me are not me, probably just some editor I pissed off trying to get me on trouble. Is there any chance I could be given a standard offer and return to editing in either a month or a year? I want a chance to prove myself. Thanks. Scaravich105nj (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear disruption and abuse of multiple accounts. only (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (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.

This request ignores the fact that this account was a sock in the first place and had no right to be editing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought after we talked yesterday that you understood the problemand would reign yourself in, so I was quite disappointed to log in today and find that you had continued throwing out charming phrases such as "get the goddamn chip off your shoulder," "I'm watching your ass" and the real deal breaker "CHILL OUT MY NIGGA". And that's not even all of, just since yesterday. You apparently either don't understand the problem, are unable to control yourself, or just don't care. I don't know which it is and it doesn't really matter.

What is a shame here is that I believe you are trying to improve Wikipedia, but the way you go about it in your interactions with other users (not just those comments but battleground behavior and edit warring) is simply not acceptable. Unless and until you show a clear understanding of that and a sincere willingness to change you will need to remain blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rich and Beeblebrox, take note that others and I had been keeping an eye on this account since it showed up. In addition to what NeilN stated in the #April 2015 section above about watching this account, see this section where I've suspected the account as being a WP:Sockpuppet. Even if not a WP:Sockpuppet of Cali11298, I'm certain that the Scaravich105nj account is a WP:Sockpuppet. Additionally, the account's words of "my nigga" remind me of 236benderavenue (talk · contribs), an account that showed up to revert me after making a few edits; see this link. 236benderavenue is another relatively new account that I'm certain is not being operated by a new Wikipedia editor. But, for now, I will refrain from referring to the 236benderavenue account as a WP:Sockpuppet. Also, keep in mind that the Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppets deny that they are WP:Sockpuppets, no matter what, as seen in this recent case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scaravich105nj admits to being GreenBayPackersfan09.[1] GreenBayPackersfan09, in turn, was clearly socking (see their talk page). - SummerPhD (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, SummerPhD. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GreenBayPackersfan09 account would read as stale with the WP:CheckUser tool, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is Cali11298's original account. I also updated this section on my talk page. It is also worth looking into the WallStreetShark (talk · contribs) account. This account was created at "22:52, 26 April 2015," a little after Scaravich105nj was indefinitely blocked. And I'm applying the same "reverting me out of the blue on a barely-watched page a little after a WP:Sockpuppet is indefinitely blocked" rationale as I did in this case. Why? Well, this is explained in the "this case" link. Cali11298 likes to follow me, and revert me in ways that scream "obvious WP:Sockpuppet." The WallStreetShark account shows the typical WP:Sockpuppet signs, such as instantly creating a user page and talk page. And any Wikipedia editor who knows that IMDb is generally a poor source for use on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb) is not at all a new Wikipedia editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here? WallStreetShark (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note WallStreetShark's interest in political topics here, and that WallStreetShark knows how to WP:Indent properly and sign his username on his first post; these talk page formatting aspects generally are not aspects that true WP:Newbies display. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new, no. I just took a hiatus from editing Wikipedia for about two years (college, I didn't have the time). That's why I know the ropes about Wikipedia. I had an old account, I just forgot its name cuz its been so long. WallStreetShark (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reeks of socks in here. Wish a CU could be run... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any of this, these look like some pretty flimsy accusations, but if anyone thinks they've really got something WP:SPI is the place to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, I have no issue letting the WallStreetShark continue editing until more, if any, evidence of WP:Sockpuppetry is gathered against him (as long as the account is not WP:Disruptive); this would be similar to the approach I took with the Thefiremanx6 account, an account that I knew was Cali11298 upon the very first edit (which was an edit simply to revert me). "Flimsy" data is usually all that I need when it comes knowing that I am dealing with a WP:Sockpuppet. In this and this other recent case, I also initially didn't have much data to go on, but I knew what I was talking about. In that latter case, somehow I'd missed that the editor used the same username (except for a change in numbers) that he'd used on the Simple English Wikipedia, which would have been a huge piece of evidence had the editor not admitted to WP:Socking before I noticed it. The WallStreetShark account aside, I do think that the WP:CheckUser tool should be ran on the Scaravich105nj account, given his history of WP:Sockpuppeting (history noted by SummerPhD above). That is, unless we are to believe he was lying about being GreenBayPackersfan09. If WallStreetShark is Cali11298 and/or Scaravich105nj, the WP:CheckUser tool is likely to reveal it when running a check on the Scaravich105nj account. Bishonen, given that you were recently involved in one of my latest WP:Sockpuppet catches (this one noted above), do you have an opinion about running the WP:CheckUser tool on the Scaravich105nj account? Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look at the 236benderavenue account, I see that, besides the "my nigga" "coincidence," 236benderavenue and Scaravich105nj are also tied when comparing this edit to this edit. That and their trailing me are one too many "coincidences" for me. I am convinced that those two are the same person. Tiptoety and/or Mike V, will you take a look into this matter? There is some definite WP:Sockpuppeting going on here, and the Scaravich105nj account, a known WP:Sockpuppet, needs to be checked for additional accounts...including WP:Sleepers. See what I stated in my "23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC), "00:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)" and "02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)" posts in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, just like the Cali11298 account trailed me, the Scaravich105nj account trailed me, and the WallStreetShark account is also a WP:Sockpuppet trailing me, the 236benderavenue account has also trailed me. Besides this, there is also this. Apparently, I am this person's weakness, since his compulsive nature leads him to getting caught every time he targets/trails me. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, regarding your WP:Block of Bleedingheartconservative (talk · contribs) as a Scaravich105nj WP:Sockpuppet, yes, I also noted that account as a WP:Sockpuppet earlier on. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a brief SPI. You can see the results there. Tiptoety ^talk 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tiptoety. I'll continue commentary there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I just want you to know I'm sorry for all the disruption I caused. However, the other IP addresses are not me, I'm serious. They're probably just some editor who I've pissed off and is now trying to get me blocked forever by making it seem like I'm still being disruptive. Scaravich105nj (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response here. Also see here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion about 10000 death on 2015 earthquake[edit]

My friend it might be type mistake of user. He might be trying to write 1000 and did mistake. If I was you I would correct error and tell him about it. Be positive my friend. Oikuchu (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oikuchu:, this user is now indefinitely blocked, largely as a result of all their nasty comments to other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox:, no, not completely. In fact, I'm currently operating another account. I'm much more better at hiding my style, so I challenge you to find out what it is (no, I won't tell you). 172.56.18.35 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Beeblebrox, in some cases, WP:CheckUsers block the IP addresses along with the account(s); this is especially the case for highly disruptive editors using static IP addresses since static IP addresses will be assigned to a person significantly longer than dynamic IP addresses (unless it's a sticky dynamic IP address); blocking the IP in the case of a non-sticky dynamic IP address is tricky because an innocent editor is likely to be assigned with the same IP address as the WP:Sockpuppet master. But since static IP addresses and sticky dynamic IP addresses last so long, this means that a block on those IP addresses can be a lengthy block. Forcing the WP:Sockpuppet master to use a WP:Proxy and/or virtual private network (VPN) is a good thing, since those are routinely blocked. Tiptoety and Alison, is a lengthy block on one or more of the IP addresses that Cali11298/Scaravich105nj uses an option in this case? For example, is 172.56.18.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) an option?

As for catching Cali11298/Scaravich105nj, he is so predictable. Case in point: I knew that he would show up here to brag about still WP:Sockpuppeting, as if anyone is naive enough to think he'd stopped doing that. Every time an editor tries to hide their editing styles from me so that they can continue WP:Sockpuppeting, I recognize them if they edit near me. It may take time for me to gather the appropriate evidence to get them blocked as the WP:Sockpuppets they are, but I know who they are. Cali11298 has tried to change his style more than once with me now, including by using "my nigga," and has failed as far as me recognizing him goes. In fact, I just spotted a suspicious account that might be him. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, flyer, flyer. I am NOT impressed. Evidently, you still haven't figured out my alternative account. The Solchant one isn't me, for starters, try again. If you haven't figured out my alternate account by May 10th, then you probably aren't as good at this as you claim to be. 172.56.34.237 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.10.247.10 (talk) [reply]

Regarding your "I am NOT impressed" post and your question, this is your answer. Try me. All you need to do is edit near me. And you will, since you are one of the many editors who have become obsessed with me after I ruined their fun. Too bad you are not the smartest. So, yes, take the WP:Bait (as far as that essay goes, my agenda is to stop you whenever I can). Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, oh, since you are a compulsive liar (as shown in the very first WP:Sockpuppet investigation I started on you), there is nothing anyone can take seriously about your claims; whether it's claiming not to be an account or making some other claim. The main important thing I know about you is that you are compulsive. You cannot resist certain things, and that is one of the main reasons I keep catching you. For example, showing up as an IP to a barely-edited article that you reverted me at, soon after commenting here? Not a smart move. Like I stated, it might take time before I reveal you as a WP:Sockpuppet, but I will know that it is you. Look at how fast I recognized you here and here. Yes, I'm fine bragging about my ability to catch you. I like chess and I like the go game. You obviously like cat and mouse. The cat and mouse game is my strong point when it comes to catching WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]