User talk:Suburban99
Suburban99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There was no intent for malevolent vandalism. I made a goofy edit due to the fact that the article was already ridiculous. I am not associated with the original authors of the article, and since it was already ridiculous, I made an additional edit, all in jest. I respectly submit my request for an unblock and hope you remove the block. I apologize for any inconvience that this may have caused and will refrain from any future improper actions. Suburban99 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
For my money, you are either one of the authors (or the author) of the article, or you are just a vandal. You'll have to come up with some better reasons, and tell us what you plan to do that is not improper. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
Suburban99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand your point and it is valid. I do want to address your concerns. First, I am not an original author of the page. My user information is accurate, google me and see if the addresses add up and so forth. If you want further information if I am exactly who I say I am, I will provide that information upon request. As far as why I was blocked, I now better understand the reasons for blocking users. I understand that it prevents vandalism of pages and keeps the current articles as accurate as possible. People who misbehave can destroy this site's reputation and have dire consequences on its user base and reliability. I understand that this site rarely gives second chances, and I understand if you don't want to give one to me. Although if you do grant me a second chance, I promise to never act outside of the acceptable lines and rules of Wikipedia. I will say this in closing. I am sorry. Truly sorry. I regret what I did and I will agree that if I ever violate the rules again, you can ban me or whatever else you choose. However, I can tell you know that this user name will never come across an admin's page again. I would like to help expand the knowledge base of the world and would appreciate a second chance to do so. Thank you for your time and consideration. Submitted with my most sincere regards: Suburban99 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per comments below, request was withdrawn. Kuru (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
- Hello Suburban99, I am willing to consider unblocking you. You make a convincing case for an unblock and I'm inclined to take your word above. Before I go and appeal on your behalf to the blocking administrator, I would like to see an example of what you would do to productively help improve Wikipedia. It has to be a change that hasn't been made already. Please list the article and what you would change. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hello DeltaQuad. I want to thank you for your consideration. I have found a page which at this point is quite weak. The article is on RASSF5. As my current doctoral work is centered on this protein, I have very extensive knowledge on the subject as well as access to scientific literature for citations. The section I would add first would be about the protein isoforms of RASSF5, also termed NORE1A (The article should really be crosslinked to both names RASSF5 and NORE1A, but maybe for another time). The isoforms of NORE1A come in 4 variants, Isoform A, B, C, and D. I would add (citing all the sources too mind you) information about how they are variably spliced and how that makes these isoforms functionally different. Secondly, I would greatly expand the interactions section. New interactions are being constantly identified and this will help people using wikipedia for references into papers on the subject and as a reference point for this protein. Third, the reading list does not contain any current literature. There are new journal articles that are subjected on RASSF5 that are much more current than the reading list and I would like to see that updated too.
- In summary, this page is very incomplete. There is quite a lot of information available to put on this page, enhance it, and compile the references making it a wonderful way for newer users to understand the function of this protein in the realm of cancer and molecular biology. Loss of NORE1A is an event that greatly increases patient's risk of developing cancer and the field is working hard to explain its function in the body.
- This is just one page that I would work on, but there are several other pages including ubiquitin ligases, SCF complexes, protein degradation regulation, the 26S proteasome, and so much more. I hope you consider my appeal and I appreciate your time and effort. Suburban99 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'm pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: to make sure all is good with him, and then we will go forward. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is just one page that I would work on, but there are several other pages including ubiquitin ligases, SCF complexes, protein degradation regulation, the 26S proteasome, and so much more. I hope you consider my appeal and I appreciate your time and effort. Suburban99 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure what all just happened, but I'm disappointed in what has just transpired. First, I'm sorry the person "IH8" hates me. But, the funny thing is that everything I posted was true. Again, I have offered to provide proof that I am I a doctoral program, and I do actually work on RASSF5. I have offered repeatedly to provide proof to anyone who requested it. Secondly, to the admin who declined my request, what on earth made you think I created applebloke to attack my own screen name. That idea does not make any sense. I was handling my request with @DeltaQuad:, and then my request gets denied from someone other than DQ. Sad state if affairs... I appreciate DQ and his efforts, and am unhappy with the some of the the other administrative officers who over-ride an admin currently handling a case. The entire series of events regarding this unblock request is confusing and frustrating. I was handling this block appeal with an admin, and then was attacked by AppleBloke. Then was attacked again from IH8 Suburban99! I am not associated in any way with them and you can check IP addresses to verify that I am not affiliated with them! Why would I create accounts to attack myself and smear my screen name even further? Moving further, another admin comes along and declined my request and says I'm affiliated with the accounts attacking myself? It seems that they did not take time to fully investigate this request and instead just declined the request. Delta Quad was reviewing my request and then it was overtaken by another admin. I've followed the unblock rules and request standards and have now been treated like this. This is sad and I hope DQ can help sort this unfortunate situation out.Suburban99 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Checkuser evidence suggests that AppleBloke is the same user as User:Bananaman321, who happens to be the same user who created the Empire of Luxembourg hoax, the same hoax that you contributed to without making any other contributions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ohnoitsjamie, the affiliation is circumstantial. How did you connect AppleBloke to Bananaman321, unless AppleBloke was made to retaliate against my posts in his article? My point is strictly that Bananaman wrote the ridiculous article about the Empire of Luxembourg, and yes, I made an edit to it (details noted above), and that is the only connection I share with that user. I have admitted the edit was out of line, an errant and improper use of wikipedia, apologized, and offered atonement. It was while making my case for an unblock, this other user, AppleBloke, attacked. In fact, AppleBloke made two posts. Different administrative users removed both posts and DeltaQuad blocked AppleBloke. It was after that, AppleBloke seemed to make a new screen name, I H8 Suburban99, and attacked again. It was at that point you denied my block. My point remains, I am not affiliated with Bananaman, AppleBloke, or the IH8 person and respectfully request consideration. If you would like me to e-mail you personally, I will, and provide any information you request. I have nothing to hide. Now, I doubt that users you term sockpuppets will made this kind of offer as they make multiple accounts. I have no such accounts, only this one, and you can check my e-mail listing and so forth to confirm. Respectfully submitted Suburban99 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Circumstantial? You created an account just to edit a hoax article that had been created a few months earlier? How did you "happen" to come across the hoax if you have affiliation with the originator of the hoax? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, yes. I was talking to a friend here at work (the University of Louisville), and they were talking about their trip to Europe that they had just returned from. They loved Luxembourg and spoke highly of it as a nice place to go. I was sitting at my computer a short time later, and searched out Luxembourg. The Empire of Luxembourg was returned in the search. I thought that was funny as it is a very small country. I read the article and found it to be a stretch at best of any relevant truth of the history of Luxembourg. I saw that there was an edit button on the page, so I clicked it, it had me make an account, and I edited it with something even more off subject and ridiculous than what was already there. Things progressed quickly as I next thing I know, my e-mail was blowing up and I was blocked and so forth. That brings us to here. Now, there you go. Again, I'm an open book, ask away and I will be glad to provide you with the information you seek.Suburban99 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to be actively reviewing everything presented above and the supposed connections as a CU myself. I will be back with results to see if they match Suburban's story. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, yes. I was talking to a friend here at work (the University of Louisville), and they were talking about their trip to Europe that they had just returned from. They loved Luxembourg and spoke highly of it as a nice place to go. I was sitting at my computer a short time later, and searched out Luxembourg. The Empire of Luxembourg was returned in the search. I thought that was funny as it is a very small country. I read the article and found it to be a stretch at best of any relevant truth of the history of Luxembourg. I saw that there was an edit button on the page, so I clicked it, it had me make an account, and I edited it with something even more off subject and ridiculous than what was already there. Things progressed quickly as I next thing I know, my e-mail was blowing up and I was blocked and so forth. That brings us to here. Now, there you go. Again, I'm an open book, ask away and I will be glad to provide you with the information you seek.Suburban99 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Circumstantial? You created an account just to edit a hoax article that had been created a few months earlier? How did you "happen" to come across the hoax if you have affiliation with the originator of the hoax? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ohnoitsjamie, the affiliation is circumstantial. How did you connect AppleBloke to Bananaman321, unless AppleBloke was made to retaliate against my posts in his article? My point is strictly that Bananaman wrote the ridiculous article about the Empire of Luxembourg, and yes, I made an edit to it (details noted above), and that is the only connection I share with that user. I have admitted the edit was out of line, an errant and improper use of wikipedia, apologized, and offered atonement. It was while making my case for an unblock, this other user, AppleBloke, attacked. In fact, AppleBloke made two posts. Different administrative users removed both posts and DeltaQuad blocked AppleBloke. It was after that, AppleBloke seemed to make a new screen name, I H8 Suburban99, and attacked again. It was at that point you denied my block. My point remains, I am not affiliated with Bananaman, AppleBloke, or the IH8 person and respectfully request consideration. If you would like me to e-mail you personally, I will, and provide any information you request. I have nothing to hide. Now, I doubt that users you term sockpuppets will made this kind of offer as they make multiple accounts. I have no such accounts, only this one, and you can check my e-mail listing and so forth to confirm. Respectfully submitted Suburban99 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Checkuser evidence suggests that AppleBloke is the same user as User:Bananaman321, who happens to be the same user who created the Empire of Luxembourg hoax, the same hoax that you contributed to without making any other contributions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure what all just happened, but I'm disappointed in what has just transpired. First, I'm sorry the person "IH8" hates me. But, the funny thing is that everything I posted was true. Again, I have offered to provide proof that I am I a doctoral program, and I do actually work on RASSF5. I have offered repeatedly to provide proof to anyone who requested it. Secondly, to the admin who declined my request, what on earth made you think I created applebloke to attack my own screen name. That idea does not make any sense. I was handling my request with @DeltaQuad:, and then my request gets denied from someone other than DQ. Sad state if affairs... I appreciate DQ and his efforts, and am unhappy with the some of the the other administrative officers who over-ride an admin currently handling a case. The entire series of events regarding this unblock request is confusing and frustrating. I was handling this block appeal with an admin, and then was attacked by AppleBloke. Then was attacked again from IH8 Suburban99! I am not associated in any way with them and you can check IP addresses to verify that I am not affiliated with them! Why would I create accounts to attack myself and smear my screen name even further? Moving further, another admin comes along and declined my request and says I'm affiliated with the accounts attacking myself? It seems that they did not take time to fully investigate this request and instead just declined the request. Delta Quad was reviewing my request and then it was overtaken by another admin. I've followed the unblock rules and request standards and have now been treated like this. This is sad and I hope DQ can help sort this unfortunate situation out.Suburban99 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- To reviewing admins It is also worth noting the User:AppleBloke is also asking to be unblocked so they can edit a highly technical subject. They could just be trolling Suburban99's request to edit a technical subject, or all of the involved editors of the Empire of Luxembourg article could just be wasting our time. Furthermore, note that up until the time that Suburban99 first edited Empire of Luxembourg, the article didn't have any obvious hoax elements to it. Shortly before Suburban99 added content, an anon IP from Louisville (where Suburban99 claims to be from) added this bit about "sponge migration," at which point the article Jumped the shark. Bottom line; I find it difficult to believe that Suburban99 just randomly stumbled upon this article because friends had recently visited Luxembourg, and that he has "no affiliation" with others involved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Admins: this whole process has become tiresome and no longer worth the effort. I appreciate DQ and his efforts in addressing my request. However this constant smear of me and who I am, combined with getting emails all day long regarding who posted a message where...summarily this whole situation has frustrated me. Ohnoitsjamie, you can decline my unblock request once more, I respectfully withdraw my request and no longer wish to be a member of this community. I appreciate the work you all do to protect the integrity of this site, and wish you all the best health and luck in the future. My highest regards, Suburban99 (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I know my word doesn't mean anything, but I've resurrected my old Wikipedia account to come say this. I made this account over five years ago, and I've changed a lot since then and no longer edit Wikipedia. However, I am a real-life associate of Suburban99, and can vouch for what he says. He's telling the truth when it comes to RASSF5 and his research. I personally can't comment on the Luxembourg story because I know nothing about that. However, I dearly wish you would give him a chance to contribute and unblock him. Thank you for your time. --KirbyManiac (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Edit - Loganrobert96, Bananaman321, AppleBloke, and I_H8_Suburban99 are also all real life associates of mine. They're all trolls, and none of them are legitimately repentant. However, Suburban99 is, and he deserves a second chance. --KirbyManiac (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)