User talk:Punk Boi 8/Archive6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reason - I believe a 48 hour block is quite unfair saying that I got a 48hr block for editing 8 pages out of this area last time.(3 this time) A 12hr block I see fair but 48hrs is quite unfair. Thank You}
Contents |
[edit] Name change
Hey Nathan,I just moved your mentoring page to a sub page of your new name User:Punk_Boi_8/Mentoring. You might want to move any other sub-pages you have and clean up the places where your old name is mentioned. Good luck with your mentoring program, I hope you find it beneficial. Sarah Ewart 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Thx for the barnstar - will have some suggestions up on your mentoring page before you get back. If you plan on coming back a little early from your break, let me know and I'll up the priority on it. --Trödel 05:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I might be back on sometime during the next week. So if you want to get them to me before 1/1/07 you can. -- Punk Boi 8 08:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Self Warning
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Punk Boi 8 09:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I gave myself this after editing/removing comments from talk pages.
[edit] Best behavior
I was disappointed to see that you edited other people's comments recently. I appreciate your willingness to apologize and give yourself a warning. When someone has stretched the limits of "good faith" as you seem to have done with many editors, it would be best if you avoided any action which could have a negative appearance. That includes editing other's comments. Of course you can leave comments on people's talk pages; however, the intention of limiting you to article and talk pages was to avoid conflict while we worked things out. Therefore, you should only suggest edits on talk pages for Templates and Wikipedia namespaces.
In order to reinforce this instruction, I have blocked you for 48 hours. When evaluating what action to take, these edits you made to a completed article, and to the Signpost Newsroom convinced me that a block was needed. Your actions in contrary to both my instructions to wait and the standards for edting Signpost article indicate that you have failed to understand the basic standards of respect we need to give each other and the traditions on Wikipedia.
I will finish up the mentoring page prior to your block expiring so we will have specific criteria and goals going forward. I am disappointed that the open-ended instruction of go forward, be good, and limit yourself to uncontroversial edits to talk and article pages could not be followed by you. It shows impatience and makes moving forward with the mentoring more difficult. --Trödel 15:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that Ral315 wanted the article updated once the members were announced. -- Punk Boi 8 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nathan, if you're going to agree to keep your edits within a certain range (article and talk pages only for now), there's no excuse at all to step outside that agreement. It seems as though your agreement was something nice to say at the time to become unblocked? I'm willing to see this through with yourself in the hope you can contribute here without controversy, however making an agreement then breaking it within your first few edits after your block is lifted doesn't inspire me with any confidence. Merry Christmas (belated best wishes sorry), and a Happy New Year in 2007 for you also. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your greeting earlier. -- Longhair\talk 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, in case I wasn't clear before. DO NOT make any changes to the Signpost or related pages at all. If mentoring goes well, I will explicitely lift this restriction. Therefor, do not assume that it is lifted regardless of other encouragement or praise I give you. Additionally, do not engage Ral315 or orther editors involved in Signpost. Failure to follow this instruction will result in a lengthy block.
- Please do not continue to seek out conflict. My efforts to help you are hindered, and my faith in you is betrayed when you continue to make these kind of edits. --Trödel 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
You've been blocked for a further 48 hours for editing outside of your agreed area "Article and talk pages". -- Longhair\talk 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Nathan. I've seen your unblock request where you state "I believe a 48 hour block is quite unfair saying that I got a 48hr block for editing 8 pages out of this area last time.(3 this time) A 12hr block I see fair but 48hrs is quite unfair. Thank You".
- I feel the block is warranted for your clear breach of an agreement you've made with editors willing to assist you with your progress here at Wikipedia. I was considering blocking you for 1 week for today's breach of your own agreement, but decided against it. It's not the total amount of Wikipedia namespace pages you are editing, it's the sheer fact you're editing them at all, contrary to what you've told us. There's little doubt your total of 3 edits would have climbed higher if it were not for my early block of today. To clear up any misunderstandings I may have, what exactly does the word agreement mean to you? -- Longhair\talk 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- O.K , I regreat what has happenend and I am leaveing the project effective immeditally. Thanks form your help. -- Punk Boi 8 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Appreciation Week
Firstly, Welcome back. Let's see if we can try again and avoid stepping on each others toes this time around hey :) Now onto your question relating to Appreciation Week... I've taken a look over the discussion taking place relating to Appreciation Week. It doesn't appear anything has yet been agreed on as yet. I'm happy to help, but what exactly are you asking me to do? -- Longhair\talk 08:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Week
The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Wikipedia Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Just for your information, I realize you've indicated others might be better qualified to make the call. Badbilltucker 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
