User talk:LiquidWater

Some last words...

I have always been a constructive contributor to Wikipedia. I have never abused multiple accounts (to participate in deletion discussions etc). Why can't I have a second chance? What's so bad about having several accounts, as long as you are editing in good faith? With close to 1000 constructive contributions to Wikipedia, nobody has ever questioned my editing. I have never received a warning. Never been reported, yet some people block me for a silly reason, that I have been blocked before.

Why don't you want my edits, apart from the fact that I have operated other accounts?

The people at Wikipediocracy seem very proud of having taken me out, but I only see this as something done to shift the focus away from the actual case to my little silly case. This is the reality, people who allegedly out and harass other users are not blocked, while people who have contributed constructively to Wikipedia for years are treated like the worst people alive. The sockpuppetry policy needs to be changed, as it is targeting innocent users on a daily basis. Good faith, and assumptions of it, are non-existent in the world of sockpuppetry.

I am going to get a little personal. I really enjoy editing Wikipedia, because I have little else to do. I am 30 years, living alone, I have no friends, and little contact with my family. I have been to psychiatric treatment two times, for depression and anxiety. My journal from the last time I was there clearly states that the psychologist believes that the cause of my depression is a lack of interest and spare-time activities. She knows that I edit Wikipedia, and says that "editing Wikipedia is important to the patient, he enjoys it, and it gives him a sense of community".

All I ask for is being able to edit Wikipedia. Why is it so dangerous to allow me to do it? I just want to help build a great encyclopedia.

I am going to post an unblock request soon. In the meantime, you may contact me by email to [email protected] . I need all your help and support in this difficult situation.

Best Regards, LiquidWater

I will be back!

Because you are a sock puppet of a long-time puppetmaster, and we don't need your contributions to Wikipedia, no matter how indispensable you think you are. Stop socking, don't edit for 6 months, and ask for the WP:STANDARD OFFER, and you might be allowed to edit again. In the meantime, your edits are removable on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't e-mail again. Failure to comply with this request may result in your e-mail privilege being shut down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken, What's so bad about "sockpuppetry" as long as you don't abuse several accounts in debates, etc? LiquidWater 08:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case you've used multiple accounts to pursue action against another user who, whatever you want to say about him, has always operated in good faith, and in what he perceives to be the interests of the encyclopedia. This de-legitimizes some arguments against DC's actions; in fact, the first time I ever raised a complaint about him, he accused me of being a sock of yours... and I can hardly blame him, since no one deserves to be subjected to multiple-account harassment, and it's understandable that one might get paranoid after a while. Like BMK says, please stop socking for at least 6 months if you want to have any chance of being allowed to contribute here. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 11:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yeah, depression/anxiety sucks. I think WP:NOTTHERAPY is bullshit: Tons of people use Wikipedia as a form of therapy, and even more people have issues on Wikipedia that clearly stem from larger real-life ones. So... if you feel that contributing to wikis really helps you, you might want to remember that Wikipedia ain't the only gin joint in Casablanca. I love contributing to Wikidata and Wikisource, and I've found it very soothing in moments of depression. (I also edit explainxkcd.com, which is arguably the funnest wiki out there... but that's a somewhat niche site.) If you're interested in doing that, my advice would be to go to one of these sites, and say up-front on your userpage who you are, and that you're trying to put all that behind you. If you can't bring yourself to give up socking on En, you might want to talk to a shrink: Show them the policies you're being blocked under, and ask them if they sound reasonable. From my experience, psychologists are normally pretty good at getting you to see that a problem you're having isn't entirely the fault of others. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 11:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@P&: I haven't read it in a while, but I don't think the point of WP:NOTTHERAPY is not that Wikipedia edit can't be therapeutic, depending on the person and the situation -- obviously, almost any activity can be helpful in the right circumstances -- but instead it's pointing out that using Wikipedia as therapy should not provide an excuse for one's behavior. I, too, have suffered from depression, as have several members of my family, and I'm still on the meds that brought me out of it, but I, alone am responsible for my behavior here, just like everyone else. If I decided to enter a 100-meter race, and was (predictably) left in the dust by the other runners, the fault wouldn't lie in my age, my lack of conditioning or my heart attack 8 years ago, it would be mine for having been so foolish as to have entered the race in the first place.

Those who come to edit here have implicitly agreed to the rules by which we work, and that means no sockpuppetry (defined as illegitimate use of multiple accounts). If LiquidWater can't bring himself to follow those rules, and is not able to correct his misbehavior when it is discovered, then he really doesn't belong here, no matter how therapeutic editing Wikipedia might be to him. There are other things to do which would, I think, be just as helpful, and he should find one of those to latch on to. While people may indeed benefit personally by editing here, it's not what we're about, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and to maintain some coherence in the community of editors who contribute to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I called you out as a sockpuppet back in March 2013 LiquidWater - or should I say Zaminamina? (The ID you tried to purge). Patriot1010 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Marte Dalelv rape incident at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this - it's brave to stand up and be counted, and admit that you're dealing with depression. One out of eight men, and one out of four women will suffer from depression at some point in their lives. It ain't easy, and I've dealt with that myself, too. So I know how it is, and you have my sympathy there. Having said that, Wikipedia isn't a great substitute for RL friends and interests. There's even a 'not therapy' essay around here somewheres. Can i maybe suggest that you maybe take a Wikibreak and explore some other options - maybe get out for a bit and do something totally different (I went back to college and learnt a new language) - something like that? Whatever you decide, you do have my best wishes, and I hope things get better for you - Alison ^❤ 08:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steven Crowder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this and this and this and other edits. That was particularly nasty. You used an editor's RL surname (someone who's openly gay) as an account name to make those edits (now suppressed), and you did that out of sheer spite in order to make them look bad. You say you'll be back? Well I'm not normally this block-happy, but if I see you around here again, I will block your account faster than you can say smear campaign - Alison ^❤ 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Well, Alison and I were the only ones who seemed to have any sympathy for you, and seeing as we're both LGBT... Just gotta say, bad call. Not that I've lost my sympathy, but I'm rather disappointed that we both gave you advice on other ways to deal with depression, and you chose to ignore both of our suggestions. I sincerely hope you reconsider. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prosecution of Marte Dalelv, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Marte Dalelv, a Norwegian woman, received a prison sentence of sixteen months in Dubai after she reported a man to the police for rape? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prosecution of Marte Dalelv. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prosecution of Marte Dalelv is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosecution of Marte Dalelv until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huldra (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]