Ssakcaj

Hello Ssakcaj, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --blooded edge ^☆ 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Blood Done Sign My Name has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shirulashem (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Blood Done Sign My Name has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in this edit to Blood Done Sign My Name. Inappropriate links include links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that serve as advertising or promotion. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Blood Done Sign My Name. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to Blood Done Sign My Name. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ssakcaj. You have new messages at Shirulashem's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Username block

This account, Ssakcaj, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username spells jackass backwards.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
4. In the alternative, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ssakcaj → Pliqueajour

• Current name: Ssakcaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · _target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
• Requested name: Pliqueajour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · _target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Previous renames: current user, _target user, Queue: open req, closed req
• AntiSpoof: antispoof check
• For global renamer: rename user
• Reason: Reason for requested renaming. Ssakcaj (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jayron32 I see where you placed a block for the reason of my user name. I have requested renaming. In no way what so ever did I intend for it to be a inappropate username.After submitting several names and they were all used I said to myself Jackass, because it is furstrating to try for 15 mins to get a username. That's when I decided to spell it backwards. I have requested renaming it as you can see. But I am also concerned about some other issues, Appears there are some other blocks going on.I am new to this and Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.Ssakcaj (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You have placed the wrong template in the wrong place. The editors involved in the renaming process didn't see your request yet. The proper order of things would have been for you to place a request for temporary unblock this account, so that you can place the rename template in the correct place. To request temporary unblock you should place

{{unblock-un|your new username here}}

and then you should place the

{{subst:Renameuser|CURRENT|NEW|3=Reason for requested renaming.}} ~~~~ where CURRENT and NEW must be substituted with the current and new username.

This must be placed in the page "Requests" section.

Of course now, before trying anything, you should respond to the sock puppet accusations...MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 01:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, I have tried to go to my sock puppet page and can read where they mis interpeted what I said.Their conclusion is I confessed. What I said was I was the only one making the changes that keep being reverted back by different users.And asked for it to stop. I am unable to go into my case on the sock puppet page and explain anything. Also here is my request to be unblocked because I am unble to access that page also.Ssakcaj (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

---

Requested username:

pliqueajour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

After reviewing the contributions of User:Rd4u, it seems quite clear that you are abusing multiple accounts to evade your block. Request declined. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ssakcaj for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mfield (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mfield, I see I have been accused of Sock puppetry. As you can see from all the changes I have made in the history of Blood Done Sign My Name since Oct 1, 2008. I was the only one making the changes, if anyone was sockpuppeting it was all the different users and unknown IP address users that were undoing what I had added to the page.You can see my history starting on Oct 1,2008 and see all the other different users that have continued to switch it back.Now thats Sock pupperty. Especially when a IP address can be traced back to the author at Duke University. You may are may not know information related to the Book Blood Done Sign My Name. But from what little information I have read on Wiki The site is not to be used for promoting anything ,Books are movies. And this is what this Author is doing.Originally the family names that are still living where on Wiki. The author has lied in this book. If you believe in evidence material you can visit my website www.timothybtyson.com I am not trying to promote my site. I am trying to show the public this author is a liar. If you can remove the information about this book and movie off wiki there will be no other problems with me.Ssakcaj (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The only issue the sockpuppetry case deals with is whether you, User:Ssakcaj have also been contributing under another username User:Rd4u. That is what sockpuppetry means, using two accounts simultaneously to mislead. If you had been blocked (incorrectly or not) for vandalism and you created another account to continue then that would constitute sockpuppetry. The actual subject of the edits is irrelevant to the sockpuppetry issue. As for the issues you have with the article - I will look at that article closer and see if I find any reliable third party sources back up what you are saying, as without them the information cannot be included per WP:PROVEIT. Mfield (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in wikipedia refers to the case were a user is making changes in an article using more than one usernames, in order to avoid username blocks, create comfusion, vote multiple times in a debate etc. Your accound has been accused for sockpuppetry not because of the quality of the changes you made, but because during the period were this account was blocked, another user, User:Rd4u appeared and started making changes similar to the ones you were making before. To sum it up, there are three differend isues about your account 1) you were accused for vandalism for the changes you made in the article, for which you should provide information in the talk page of the article, to justify your clame, or ask for a third opinion instead of persistently making the same changes. 2) Improper user name that violates wikipedia rules. 3) Using more than one usernames to bypass the blocking of your account. The sockpuppet accusation refers only to case (3). They are seperate cases, and you would have to present arguments for each one of them in different places.MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 01:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mfield, I have no clue as to who User:Rd4u is. There are a lot of people in Granville County and the surrounding counties that are aware of the issues with the book. If I knew who it was I would probally say Thank You to them. As for the issues that I have with the article - You say you will look at that article closer and see if you can find any reliable third party sources to back up what I am saying. I don't know what type of third party information you need, But I am willing to provide it to you. I am Larry Teel one of the Teels that the author mentions in the book.Just because someone claims to be a Historian and a teacher at Duke University it does not justify anyone to take known sources and distort the facts to make a book for profit.I am not in no way trying to make any money are anything from this I just want the truth told like it was in the newspapers back in 1970. All the records I have came from The Department of Archives in Raleigh, NC and The Richard H.Thornton Libary located in Oxford NC. I can give you the dates of the papers and articles or send you copies of these papers. This author knows there are not many people anywhere that would spend months at the archives for an event that happened 38 years ago searching this information to see if his statements are correct. Only someone involved with the incendent and knew all the facts would question him for this.That's me. Also if you would like to you can look at the History of Timothy Tyson's page and go to the dates between May 28, 2007 - June 24,2007 and read the information Marshall H. Pinnix tried to correct Tim on in the book and the responce he got back from the author for being called out. I certainly never knew this person, Marshall H. Pinnix.

The way I understand Wiki using someone's name that's still living is inapproate.

I own the domain name www.timothybtyson.com something The author has not been able to stop. If you want to get the book from the libary or buy one I will reinburse you for it. You can see on the website where I reference every page to the newspaper articles and the newspapers contradicts some of the author's main lies. I'll even give you a quick reference to listen to that the author has on his wiki page.But it will not help unless you have the book. Listen to the NPR interview, If you go by the opening statement in the book he said he was told that on May 12, 1970. In his own words on the NPR interview he said he was told on May 11,1970. Now keep in mind that he could not have known anything before it happened. Then listen to the lady speaking she says Marrow would not have said anything disrespectful to a white woman. If Marrow said anything it was to warn the people for them not to patronize the Teel’s business. Dickie would never insult a female. All that information is different in Tims book, he says Henry was shopping at Teel's grocery store that did not even exist.

So all I am asking is to remove the Teels and Oakley's names,and remove the section on Timothy Tyson's wiki page Blood Done Sign My Name.And on the page Blood Done Sign My Name it needs to be removed, along with Henry Marrow's page. He is promoting the book and the movie.

Please keep me posted. But I would like my name Larry Teel and Robert my father's name and my step brother, Rogers names removed as soon as possible untill you can review this and decide.Ssakcaj (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, the information about the article or factual debates about the content of the book are irrelevant to the sockpuppetry case and should not be discussed here but on the article's talk page. For your understanding about how to deal with this though, the burden of proof is on you if you are making statements about the factual accuracy of the book. Alledged inconsistencies would need to be reported by a reliable third party source before they could be included in the article. If you have such reliable sources, then the best thing to do would be to propose the addition of a controversy section on the article talk page, listing out the reliable sources e.g. newspapers, NPR etc. and the proposed text. Then let consensus decide if the sources correctly back the text and so that it can be added to the article without reversion. That is the only way to go about adding information that is controversial. The fact is that he book has been published and that act imparts it a degree of reliability and you will need equally or more reliable sources to be able to question it.

As for the sockpuppetry case, if you think you have been incorrectly accused and maintain that you did not also edit as User:Rd4u, then you need to make that case on your sockpuppetry case page

Hope this clarifies a few things. Mfield (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)