This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tan |
39 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)No block is absolutely necessary, we can always live without them. But this was a long term pattern of abuse for which Tan should know is unacceptable (and he had received warnings for such in the past: [1] [2]). At some point one does have to enforce warnings with blocks. Prodego talk 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
.... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tanthalas39 unblock. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Why unprotect Bird, though it is TFA WP:NOPRO states: "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Tbhotch Talk C. 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, sorry for lashing out at you (If you want to call it that. I was more assumeing bad faith rather than lashing out) I do agree with the de-sysoping of Tan and your initial block was apparently in line with policy (wither I like it or not) sorry for dragging this on longer than it needed to. Hope you forgive that and I'll see you around :) (Likely not though unless you take a sudden intrest in U-boats but hey...)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation to let you know of some upcoming changes to Wikipedia. On May 13, we will be changing the the default skin on the English Wikipedia to Vector instead of Monobook. This change may affect some gadgets and extensions, so I wanted to let you know as you appear to be the author of/involved with one of the most widely used gadgets on the English Wikipedia. For further details, please check out the post on Village Pump.
Thanks!
Howief ( talk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed. -- Avi ( talk) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, this article was at AfD. I already speedied it for the same reason you did, but the creator came complaining that the article didn't technically meet the speedy deletion criteria (it had an attempted claim to notability, albeit a bad one, and unreliable sources is not in of itself a criteria for speedy deletion). He was technically right—I had been IARing to delete it since it was so obvious what the consensus would be—so I restored it and figured it wouldn't hurt to let the AfD run its course (most likely, within a few hours it could be SNOW deleted anyway). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia malamanteau controversy article. After it was speedily deleted, I addressed the issue with the admin who deleted it (as seen above), who admitted that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and thus, gave me permission to rewrite the article. I have rewritten, and added a considerably amount of information to the article, and intended to recreate the article, however, the article is now protected, and I can not post the new version.
Further, what justification do you have for creation protecting the address? I have yet to resubmit the article once, thus, the use of creation protection seems a bit premature and draconian.
Thanks, 8bit ( talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, FYI. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
...would you mind closing this little snowstorm: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us? Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I should have worded my comment differently. I meant that it's something that is able to be reverted if everybody really hates it and the foundation agrees. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego,
You likely don't know this, but I learned how to to put my userpage together when I first got started, by studying the code on yours. Anyway, I do some recent changes patrolling from time to time, and I'd be able to do it faster if I had rollback rights, and you're listed as an administrator willing to consider granting said rights, so I thought I'd ask. Man that last sentence had too many conjunctions! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked at the users userpage here and looked at the utbe account? A blind person can see it is the same editor. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Dude I thought you unblocked me man but the block ran out all by itself! :) BerndGalama ( talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
After speaking to someone and granting them an unblock request it looks absolutely terrible to reblock nearly immediately, particularly given that I explicitly informed Fram of the unblock (via email) when I made it. Given that the unblock request was to remove the block, he can edit under the new account, and not only that, but I did leave a note on the talk page of his old account linking to the new one. So long as he makes good edits, he is a net positive to the project, worst case is that he gets blocked again, which is how things were to begin with. There is no 'lose' option here. Prodego talk 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have already bettered myself. I was allowed to return to the Dutch wikipedia where I have made several articles and hundreds of good edits since my return. I was given a second chance her also and I gladly took it. I am no longer a sock; I am a new user with a new account - a fresh new start. BerndGalama ( talk) 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Prodego, don't remove my comments from someone else's user talk page [3] again, please. This time, it's not a policy but a guideline, WP:TALK, you were violating: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Your removal did not meet any of the listed exceptions. Fram ( talk) 07:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hell there. I would like to protest your revision on the above article, given that both CS/PAVA spray and TASER are legally classed as firearms in law - hence my edit. Do you still feel that your revision should stand? SGGH ping! 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That seems fair. SGGH ping! 13:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
See my ? for you are Xeno's RFB. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tan |
39 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)No block is absolutely necessary, we can always live without them. But this was a long term pattern of abuse for which Tan should know is unacceptable (and he had received warnings for such in the past: [1] [2]). At some point one does have to enforce warnings with blocks. Prodego talk 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
.... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tanthalas39 unblock. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Why unprotect Bird, though it is TFA WP:NOPRO states: "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Tbhotch Talk C. 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, sorry for lashing out at you (If you want to call it that. I was more assumeing bad faith rather than lashing out) I do agree with the de-sysoping of Tan and your initial block was apparently in line with policy (wither I like it or not) sorry for dragging this on longer than it needed to. Hope you forgive that and I'll see you around :) (Likely not though unless you take a sudden intrest in U-boats but hey...)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation to let you know of some upcoming changes to Wikipedia. On May 13, we will be changing the the default skin on the English Wikipedia to Vector instead of Monobook. This change may affect some gadgets and extensions, so I wanted to let you know as you appear to be the author of/involved with one of the most widely used gadgets on the English Wikipedia. For further details, please check out the post on Village Pump.
Thanks!
Howief ( talk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed. -- Avi ( talk) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, this article was at AfD. I already speedied it for the same reason you did, but the creator came complaining that the article didn't technically meet the speedy deletion criteria (it had an attempted claim to notability, albeit a bad one, and unreliable sources is not in of itself a criteria for speedy deletion). He was technically right—I had been IARing to delete it since it was so obvious what the consensus would be—so I restored it and figured it wouldn't hurt to let the AfD run its course (most likely, within a few hours it could be SNOW deleted anyway). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia malamanteau controversy article. After it was speedily deleted, I addressed the issue with the admin who deleted it (as seen above), who admitted that it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and thus, gave me permission to rewrite the article. I have rewritten, and added a considerably amount of information to the article, and intended to recreate the article, however, the article is now protected, and I can not post the new version.
Further, what justification do you have for creation protecting the address? I have yet to resubmit the article once, thus, the use of creation protection seems a bit premature and draconian.
Thanks, 8bit ( talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, FYI. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
...would you mind closing this little snowstorm: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us? Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I should have worded my comment differently. I meant that it's something that is able to be reverted if everybody really hates it and the foundation agrees. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego,
You likely don't know this, but I learned how to to put my userpage together when I first got started, by studying the code on yours. Anyway, I do some recent changes patrolling from time to time, and I'd be able to do it faster if I had rollback rights, and you're listed as an administrator willing to consider granting said rights, so I thought I'd ask. Man that last sentence had too many conjunctions! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked at the users userpage here and looked at the utbe account? A blind person can see it is the same editor. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Dude I thought you unblocked me man but the block ran out all by itself! :) BerndGalama ( talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
After speaking to someone and granting them an unblock request it looks absolutely terrible to reblock nearly immediately, particularly given that I explicitly informed Fram of the unblock (via email) when I made it. Given that the unblock request was to remove the block, he can edit under the new account, and not only that, but I did leave a note on the talk page of his old account linking to the new one. So long as he makes good edits, he is a net positive to the project, worst case is that he gets blocked again, which is how things were to begin with. There is no 'lose' option here. Prodego talk 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have already bettered myself. I was allowed to return to the Dutch wikipedia where I have made several articles and hundreds of good edits since my return. I was given a second chance her also and I gladly took it. I am no longer a sock; I am a new user with a new account - a fresh new start. BerndGalama ( talk) 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Prodego, don't remove my comments from someone else's user talk page [3] again, please. This time, it's not a policy but a guideline, WP:TALK, you were violating: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Your removal did not meet any of the listed exceptions. Fram ( talk) 07:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hell there. I would like to protest your revision on the above article, given that both CS/PAVA spray and TASER are legally classed as firearms in law - hence my edit. Do you still feel that your revision should stand? SGGH ping! 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That seems fair. SGGH ping! 13:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
See my ? for you are Xeno's RFB. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)