User talk:Scarpy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

February 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. wL<speak·check> 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This block is being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Craigtalbert blocked due to vandalism on Justine_Ezarik. Please look over the discussion before taking any action on this account. --wL<speak·check> 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Okay, I got a little carried away with this. I apologize. I've done a lot of good work on wikipedia, and a 30-day month block seems excessive."

Decline reason: "Since disruptive editing has occurred at other articles and this seems to be more than a one-off occasion, you seem to need a cooling-off period. You are welcome to return after your block expires, as long as you do not repeat the behavior. JERRY talk contribs 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have not made disruptive edits to other articles. I'm not sure what other incidents you are refering to. This is an isolated incident. I'm coming up on 6000 edits."

Decline reason: "I reviewed the AN/I. It seems that you do need a little cooling off, especially given the incident Orlady referred to. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Orlady and I have genuine disagreements, and I'm at a loss here because I can't respond to them directly. I have been very civil with her and our disagreements about reliable sources and weasel words are not related to disruptive editing. I never refered to her as a troll, rather if you look at the talk page for Schizophrenics Anonymous and the comments by Admiral Roo and Merkinsmum, you'll see what I was talking about in the AfD discussion. I apologize for not elaborating more in the AfD, but again, this is an unrelated issue."

Decline reason: "Consensus stands that your block remains. We may discuss the length of the block at the the Admin's noticeboard, as well as whether or not your dispute with Orlady will apply. It may not be 30 days in the end, but be noted that you have been warned about disrupting articles and that they not only hurt the subject, but Wikipedia as a whole. This is your third decline, so I must lock your page for the moment. --wL<speak·check> 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Since you deleted your LJ post

There's one further answer that occurs to me:

  1. namechange user:Craigtalbert -> user:Wholesomedick (or whatever) - requires a Bureaucrat to sign off
  2. unblock User:Craigtalbert - requires WikiLeon, probably, to sign off
  3. block User:Wholesomedick for 1 month - requires any admin, but probably WikiLeon would be best
  4. User:Wholesomedick serves out the rest of the monthlong block with dignity and poise, and maybe gets some work done around the lab - requires you to sign off ;)

However I don't know if the software will support such a clever option.


Any admin can unblock you if he/she feels it's best. The namechange has already occured but I think you're still blocked. Your block is still under review, so I suggest you stick around to see what will happen. You can still communicate here. Just don't overdo it with the unblock template. --wL<speak·check> 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Old pages

Just to check, you want your old user and user talk pages undeleted and moved to your new name? Even though you changed names for privacy reasons? Just want to be sure... BencherliteTalk 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Give me a mo, though. BencherliteTalk 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's the job done. Your old user page has been restored and the history of your old talk page brought over here. Let me know if this hasn't worked out as you wanted. Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

I saw that you started editing again, and wanted to say "Hay". Your insight has been missed on the AA page. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish request

It looks like your user talk page was protected because you continued to post unblock templates despite your unblock requests being declined multiple times.

Blocks and page protections are not punitive. It would be wise to look at the history of your actions and learn from how your behavior has lead you to the situation you are now in. I'm going to unprotect your user talk page to give you a chance to post there asking to have your userpage deleted from your registered account -- I need you logged in to prove that you are who you say you are.

If you abuse this opportunity once again, do not be surprised if your future bleatings about how unfairly you are being treated fall on deaf ears.

--Ryan Delaney talk 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. At this point I consider the matter closed. If there is something about my tone that you find disturbing, then I apologize and suggest that we put this behind us. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney talk 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your 3RR Report

Your current 3RR report looks malformed. It looks like the editor in question only changed the article once, then reverted twice. So first of all, this is only 2 reverts, not 4, which would be breaking WP:3RR. Second, the diffs you have given aren't all the diffs by the editor in question, at least one is you reverting the other editor. Might want to clean that up, or withdraw it. Gwynand (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hay, I have a question. do you know why I was tagged for the 3RR in this prossess. you know more about policies than I do, but I viewed the entire situation as vandalism and thought the 3RR didn't apply to that.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, it was a content dispute, although a closer reading of that user's edits would lean towards likely vandalism. You were template-warned over edit warring and the 3RR rule, but not punished for it, per se. Remember, 3RR is only an exception to the most simple and obvious vandalism, like page blanking or vulgar language. The other editors edits were more likely very POV, unsourced, and totally wrong, but technically not obvious vandalism. Just to be clear, I agree with you two on his edits being wrong, I'm just clarifying some things about the 3RR process. Gwynand (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I may have something to do with the diffs I included, I thought showing someone correcting a bad revert would be as good as showing the malicious revert. I don't know. It hate it when I report obvious vandalism, and the admins defend the vandal. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Please assume good faith, I was just attempting to help you. Gwynand (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence along with the kind words. I am under the opinion that my appeal got pigonholed (and any further complaints by me will be just Beating a dead horce. I took a look at this admins talk page, and it appears there are alot of 3RR template appeals. This leads me to believe he may be quick on the draw, but also doing a thankless job. from that pov, I was able to calm down and let it be (although I still believe he was misguided in my case).Coffeepusher (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scarpy - I think your most recent comment on my talk page was not meant for me. I never templated anyone, nor warned you or Cofeepusher for 3RR. Would you mind removing it (I'm assuming it was intended for the admin you were dealing with in this case). Gwynand (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Rodney Anonymous
Inner child
Felix D. Arroyo
Women For Sobriety
Tavisupleba
Stephen Rosskamm Shalom
Palace economy
Participatory politics
Polyculturalism
Dual economy
Balanced job complex
Gathering place
AA Grapevine
Market abolitionism
Adams State College
Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design
Anonymous sex
Mixmaster anonymous remailer
Disease model of addiction
Cleanup
Bulimia nervosa
Plantation economy
Humility
Merge
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Body language
Self-awareness
Add Sources
Open economy
Higher power
Underground economy
Wikify
Multimethodology
Jack Trimpey
Infighting
Expand
Bob Smith (doctor)
Schizotypal personality disorder
Phenomenology

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)