User talk:Sakaimover

Sakaimover is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia not for a very long time

What do you mean, unconstructive? Not only was I removing vandalism, you've not even reverted any edit I've made. Thegreatluigi (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, sorry. I was trying to revert the vandal edit but you had already done it - then I accidentally warned you instead of the vandal. I’ll remove the warning from your talk page. Sakaimover (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you question is pretty well thought out. I don't think I asked a RFA question until I had a healthy year and 15K in edits under my belt. Enjoy your WikiBreak! -- Dolotta (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've had a rough start here, but take your time, learn your way around, and especially listen to advice from experienced editors, such as Cullen328. You've been doing some good work with citations so keep that up, those are the backbone of this project. Try to stay away from areas that have lead to problems, like vandal-fighting and posting warnings & notices, and keep focusing on improving cites and contributing to articles for now, and the rest will come in time. Good luck. - wolf 02:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editcountitis? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on Scharnhorst while I was in the middle of working on the page cost me a lot of wasted time. Whatever you did this morning, please do not do it again.Gousinsaang (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gousinsaang: Sakaimover did not edit Scharnhorst this morning, not sure what your complaining about? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Recently an IP editor posted a message to this page about adding fake references to nonexistent papers. You removed the message in an edit with the edit summary "Removing archived discussions", although you have not in fact archived it. On checking I confirmed that the IP editor had reverted a number of edits by you which did indeed include references to supposed research papers which do not exist.
• Your editing on your user page, on this talk page, and elsewhere, suggest that you are more interested in building up statistics, such as edit count, and reaching "service award" than in improving the encyclopaedia. It seems entirely plausible that that may be the reasons for your fake references: it is a quicker and easier way to clock up edits than actually researching genuine references. You claimed that papers you cited were published in well-established journals, and it is inconceivable that I would have been unable to find a record of them had they existed.
• Such editing casts doubt on the veracity of your other editing, too. For example, you have added numerous references to books which do exist, but without access to copies of the books it is impossible to know whether those books actually contain the information you have attributed to them, or whether those are more of your false claims.
• These problems follow other problems about which you have previously been warned. You have previously been blocked from editing for disruptive editing.
• You are also continuing to do other types of editing which you were told to leave until you are much more experienced. You have ignored what you were told.
• Please respond to both of the following points.

1. State whether there is any reason why you should not be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing, including deliberate vandalism, now.
2. Revert every single edit you have ever made which claims to be a reference to a source which either doesn't exist or which does exist but which you have not read to check that it contains the information for which you have used it as a reference. When you have done so, post a message here saying that you have.

• If you do not respond to those points, if you do so but your answers to them are inadequate, or if I see any more examples of any of the kinds of disruptive editing about which you have been warned, I am likely to block you from editing, without further warning. Such a block may well be indefinite, and if I see one more example of deliberate vandalism or dishonesty then it almost certainly will be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sakaimover, I've blocked you indefinitely in order to stop you from reverting your own valid edits to restore vandalism to articles. I don't know whether your actions are pointy or entirely misguided, but they are harming the encyclopedia. You can be unblocked as soon as you explain what exactly what you're trying to prove with edits such as this and convince the reviewing admin there will be no more disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I will be using rollback as most of your edits are restoring vandalism.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...What did I tell you? What did EVERYONE tell you? Why did you go back to reverting editors? Why did you go back to vandalism hunting after we specifically told you NOT to do it? I'm sorry, but I agree with this block. You do not have the maturity to edit on Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, Tarage, and JamesBWatson: this is indeed Architect 134. GAB^gab 14:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GAB: Thanks for that information. Now that you have pointed it out, I can see a number of similarities which would have given the game away if I had noticed them earlier. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

A disappointing waste of time then. --Tarage (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to apologize; my friend took my phone and was messing around with the Voltron page a couple of times. I told her to fix it, but by that time, you'd already done it. Thank you and have an awesome day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.144.19 (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw our removal of the fake "Kenner, Richardson" source, (supposed title) "Shotgun sequencing: Review of progress in sequence assembly developments" from (supposed journal?) Methods in Biomolecular Research. *Is* this an actual real journal - I can't find it with Google, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. (probably stupid question here) Why for the love of anything would someone do this - just to be able to say, "yeah, I got a fake reference on Wikipedia that managed to last 9 before someone caught it!" and have a few laughs over too much beer with some stupid Molecular-Genetics-Undergrate-Gang? (I'd think people in that major would be above such juvenility, but I assume it's like Rule 34r