User talk:Pilgrimsquest

Welcome!

Hello, Pilgrimsquest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You appear to be interested in "British Isles"-related topics. This is a controversial area on Wikipedia, and unfortunately the community has had to implement sanctions in this area. If you see any articles where you feel that the term "British Isles" should be added or removed you should raise it at the "British Isles Specific Examples" page.

Again, welcome! TFOWR 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I have monitored a few discussion before creating an account and it seems the 5 pillars are crumbling.But thanks again for the welcome.Pilgrimsquest (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of The Maiden City (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to this sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

TFOWR 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok TFOWR, whats going on here? Can you help? what should I do?Pilgrimsquest (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser has checked the technical data available and confirmed that you're the same editor as Blue is better (talk) and Factocop (talk) (blocked sock puppets). So I've blocked you. You could request an {{unblock}}, but it's likely to be a waste of your time as checkuser data is regarded as very compelling. TFOWR 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I am factocop but I was never Blue_is_better. I just wanted to check if there would be a match to the phantom that is blue_is_better.oh well.Pilgrimsquest (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen this cover up? [1] --87.113.177.162 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I am not surprised. And they get offended when they are called a clique.I have never been Blue_is_better or The_Maiden_City. Honestly! The 1st sock puppet investigation confirmed that I was not The_Maiden_City nor several other IP addresses. But then I had been accused of Blue_is_better, and I have never heard of this user nor have we commented on the same discussions. I thought the point of using a sock was to back up arguments. Say for example I wanted to change the name of say Londonderry to Derry, I would just create a couple of socks to sway consensus in a particular direction and then have muted anyone who disagreed with claims of vandalism and disruption. Just an example of the top of my head.Pilgrimsquest (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my FACTOCOP account is locked and the talk page locked is anyone looking into the validity of the CheckUser results as it is obviously not working correctly?Pilgrimsquest (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left instructions at User talk:Factocop on how you can request to be unblocked. But after this I suspect you're not really that interested in facts. TFOWR 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with facts, Your last post was rather patronising and as it was no help to my case, I removed it. I am aware of policy but it is how they came to that policy that does not rest well with me. I have already sent an email to the unblocking email address you provided. Thankyou, but I just hope they take a look at how the CheckUser found its results because it is very wrong in this case!Pilgrimsquest (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]