Because it is ridiculous. pointlessforest 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont know what to do because someone keep vandalising on me because he is removing my contribute. What do I do? Please help me Colleenthegreat 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You may also find some helpful information in the following links:
Welcome!
Hello, Colleenthegreat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Ewlyahoocom
02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt you know me. What even brought you too me in the first place?? Darkage7 06:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
cześć, przepraszam za to, że się na Ciebie wczoraj zezłościłam. Mam nadzieję, że dobrze Ci idzie na Wikipedii. Miranda 07:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding these to articles that haven't been officially designated "featured." If you'd like more information about featured articles, please read over this page Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Cedar Run is NOT the largest waterway in
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (the
West Branch Susquehanna River is, and
Pine Creek is the largest creek). Please stop or risk being blocked,
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Cedar Run, Pennsylvania. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Making an article on Cedar Run is fine, but claiming it has 1,493 inhabitants is just nonsense. The village is in
Brown Township which has a total only 111 people as of 2000.
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem and hope I did not come across as too gruff above. Here is the USGS GNIS lisiting of populated places in US with the name "Cedar Run" (even as an alternate name) [1] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to
block users if they have received a recent final
warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! —
slakr\
talk /
06:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. If you mean my little addition to the Flag of Kosovo is unconstructive but lauded, then I should let you know that these are things you hear a lot, but you don't seem them on the news. I think some articles need to include something that has become popular, even such a useless anecdote.-- Getoar ( talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for smiling at me! Could you tell me what in particular it was I did that made you smile? Wow, I feel so special! How kind of you! — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok. Thanks for the smile and sorry for misinterpreting. Keep up the good work. Okiefromokla questions? 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be more judicious when handing out Uw-vandalism4im warnings which should only be issued for the most egregious acts of vandalism. Most admins will not block users if a report is made to AIV and they see this warning issued for "run of the mill" vandalism. For example, I have no idea why this [2] was issued. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been warned before not to make nonsense edits. You continue to do so on the Talk:Jesus page, which is dedicated to discussion for improving the encyclopedia article - not silly attempts to proselytize others. Please stop. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"...and is very sparsely populated dispite having several large but obscure communities". Your added this post with no references and it looks original research. W Wiki nie wskazane dodawanie opinii własnych. Pozdrawiam. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been warned repeatedly about nonsense edits. This is vandalism. I am blocking you for one month. Let's see if that is enough time for you to grow up. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Colleenthegreat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It should be noted that English is not my first language, so in the edit where I changed "heroine" to "heroin," I thought I was reverting vandalism and correcting the spelling, which I know was wrong and that I should be more careful if I'm not completely sure about a word. I have some history of helping anti-vandal efforts, and this is the only edit I've made that I would think to be vandalism. My other recent edits have been reverted by the blocking admin ( User:Slrubenstein), although I'm not sure why all of these can be considered vandalism. Slrubenstein had misunderstood my intentions when I posted a proposal on Talk:Jesus, and the block occured after I asked where I could best accomplish my request, which should have shown that I was not necessarily intending to troll, as Slrubenstein originally accused. I am a little bit familiar of the process of issuing user warnings, and I feel I was not sufficiently warned that my actions were nearing the point of being blocked. Not to mention being blocked for a month. I feel that is a little bit extreme. I can source at least some of my recent edits that Slrubenstein reverted, and I think I should be given a second chance, and, if possible, sufficiently warned of an impending block in the future. Additionally, I feel I should also apologize after reading some of Slrubenstien's comments with Chensiyuan. If it means anything, I am sorry, and I realize a lot of people seem to be misinterpreting me. I am learning english better every day, and I will always try to improve my contributions.
Decline reason:
Declined for now, pending a response to the comments below. Mango juice talk 15:05, 27 February 2008 (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.
Colleenthegreat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have answered the comments, like Mangojuice asked, and have readded this template as suggested.
Decline reason:
You're answers below are defensive and evasive and show no evidence that you plan to stop your disruptive edits in the future. Since I see no evidence of contrition nor any desire to cease the problematic edits, I am declining this unblock request. — Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:51, 28 February 2008 (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.
To be clear - the comments on the talk:Jesus page are only 1/3 of the root cause for the block.
virtually all other edits this editor has made fall into two categories:
And there you have it - virtually all edits this editor has made at Wikipedia. This person is just not ready to help write an encyclopedia. I suggest that s/he use the next month constructively, by studying our core policies and looking at featured articles to see how our core policies are actually expressed, and by researching topics s/he really cares about - serious research, reading reliable sources of notable views, so that when s/he returns s/he can contribute to articles without being reverted every time. A month is not too long to wait, especially for someone who clearly has a lot to learn. In the meantime, unblocking just means this editor can go back to using Wikipedia as a personal playground for disruptive edits. No, the block should stay. Colleanthegreat, if you genuinely want to help write an encyclopedia, spend the four weeks reading and rereading our core policies, just read and learn how people work on articles, and research topics you really care about, research them properly, so when you come back you can edit and your edits will actually help the project rather than hinder it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Given you willful disregard of the nine warnings given you by almost as many other editors to stop making nonsensical edits and violating NOR starting 19 October - you were warned 9 times over a five month period and up to the day I blocked you you continued making dozens of nonsense NOR edits at a time to as many articles, I am utterly unpersuaded by your plea to be unblocked. Those warnings didn't work to change your behavior; if you are unblocked today the block just amounts to another warning. It is time you really took seriously your probmlem and our being tired of letting you play games here. You can show evidence of taking this seriously by accepting the block and really thinking about what you did - I don't just mean all the silly, pointless, NOR or POV edits, I mean why you consistently disregarded warnings and advice to comply with our policies over the past five months. If you want to keep blaming Enlgish being your second language (if indeed it really is; everything you have written sounds like it was written by a native English speaker, and we have plenty of editors who speak English as a second language who do not change heroine to heroin ... and what - you deleted a link made by an editor without looking to see where the link went to, and you replaced it with a new link and you didn't even bother to see what you were linking to? That shows a massive lack of good faith in other editors, and I really am skeptical of your excuses about being a non-native English speaker ... you need to start taking Wikipedia's policies and its editors seriously, and given your repeated disrespect over the past 5 months I think a one month block is generous) ... if English really is your second language, spend the month working on your English and then return to Wikipedia a better editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So eloquent. Are you sure English is not your native reason? Is that still your excuse for your vandalism? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you found my last point constructive. I have suggested to Ricky that he mentor you on these points. If he is willing to mentor you, I have no objection to his (or her?) unblocking you. I do think it would be valuable for you tot have a more experienced editor to consult with. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Notice: I have renewed my IP address and created another account from which to edit and bypass my block. The block was unjustified and I was not given benefit of WP:AGF, so I will disregard it and continue my contributions to Wikipedia from my new account. Thanks to all who have supported me and I hope I am treated fairly with respect and neutrality in my continued efforts on Wikipedia as I employ my better understanding of our policy. Further refuting on my block can be found under the page history. Colleenthegreat ( talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I have posted 2 unblock requests already, but have been told by
User:Ricky81682 to try again. There is a lot of discussion on this page about the situation, but the main reason I am asking for an unblock (in addition to the reasons I mentioned in my other unblock requests) is that I am ready to contribute in %100 accordance with policy. The block was an understandable overreaction to my edit history, of which many of my edits have violated
WP:V and were unsourced (they've been called "silly"). I understand this fully now; nevertheless, I was not given a final warning (or any warning that I could be blocked), so one month was probably premature. Still, I understand why
User:Slrubenstein (the original blocker) jumped to the good-faith conclusion that I was a troll. I've had a long and difficult process of getting to understanding policy (I've been advised of many things I have done wrong, and always tried to learn from them). Now, I am hoping that I will no longer be mistaken for a bad-faith editor, as I have read extensively of our policies and guidelines and feel that I am ready to begin editing with a much improved understanding of how to make this encyclopedia better. Thanks to the admin who looks into this.
Colleenthegreat (
talk)
05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)}}
Hi COlleen. You asked Mangojuice, "Should I create a new account and start over?" You didn't ask for my advice but I will give it:I think this is a bad idea. Many people here are very suspicious about the possibility of sock-puppetry as a way fo deceiving people (read the policies on sock-puppets) and if you create a new account, you risk giving people the idea you have something to hide, a bad idea.Second, you should not feel you have anything to hide. We all make mistakes. If you make lots of silly edits that are trivial and possibly OR, yes, people ought to know that you have done this in the past. BUT, if you do not do this, if you are careful to learn from your mistakes and not to do them in the future, well, believe me people will forget all about your past mistakes. Just focus on learning how to be a good, constructive editor, seek advice when you are unsure about compliance with policies, and listen to other people, and you will not have to worry about your past record. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it is ridiculous. pointlessforest 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont know what to do because someone keep vandalising on me because he is removing my contribute. What do I do? Please help me Colleenthegreat 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You may also find some helpful information in the following links:
Welcome!
Hello, Colleenthegreat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Ewlyahoocom
02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt you know me. What even brought you too me in the first place?? Darkage7 06:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
cześć, przepraszam za to, że się na Ciebie wczoraj zezłościłam. Mam nadzieję, że dobrze Ci idzie na Wikipedii. Miranda 07:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding these to articles that haven't been officially designated "featured." If you'd like more information about featured articles, please read over this page Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Cedar Run is NOT the largest waterway in
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (the
West Branch Susquehanna River is, and
Pine Creek is the largest creek). Please stop or risk being blocked,
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Cedar Run, Pennsylvania. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. Making an article on Cedar Run is fine, but claiming it has 1,493 inhabitants is just nonsense. The village is in
Brown Township which has a total only 111 people as of 2000.
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem and hope I did not come across as too gruff above. Here is the USGS GNIS lisiting of populated places in US with the name "Cedar Run" (even as an alternate name) [1] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to
block users if they have received a recent final
warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! —
slakr\
talk /
06:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. If you mean my little addition to the Flag of Kosovo is unconstructive but lauded, then I should let you know that these are things you hear a lot, but you don't seem them on the news. I think some articles need to include something that has become popular, even such a useless anecdote.-- Getoar ( talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for smiling at me! Could you tell me what in particular it was I did that made you smile? Wow, I feel so special! How kind of you! — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok. Thanks for the smile and sorry for misinterpreting. Keep up the good work. Okiefromokla questions? 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be more judicious when handing out Uw-vandalism4im warnings which should only be issued for the most egregious acts of vandalism. Most admins will not block users if a report is made to AIV and they see this warning issued for "run of the mill" vandalism. For example, I have no idea why this [2] was issued. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been warned before not to make nonsense edits. You continue to do so on the Talk:Jesus page, which is dedicated to discussion for improving the encyclopedia article - not silly attempts to proselytize others. Please stop. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"...and is very sparsely populated dispite having several large but obscure communities". Your added this post with no references and it looks original research. W Wiki nie wskazane dodawanie opinii własnych. Pozdrawiam. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been warned repeatedly about nonsense edits. This is vandalism. I am blocking you for one month. Let's see if that is enough time for you to grow up. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Colleenthegreat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It should be noted that English is not my first language, so in the edit where I changed "heroine" to "heroin," I thought I was reverting vandalism and correcting the spelling, which I know was wrong and that I should be more careful if I'm not completely sure about a word. I have some history of helping anti-vandal efforts, and this is the only edit I've made that I would think to be vandalism. My other recent edits have been reverted by the blocking admin ( User:Slrubenstein), although I'm not sure why all of these can be considered vandalism. Slrubenstein had misunderstood my intentions when I posted a proposal on Talk:Jesus, and the block occured after I asked where I could best accomplish my request, which should have shown that I was not necessarily intending to troll, as Slrubenstein originally accused. I am a little bit familiar of the process of issuing user warnings, and I feel I was not sufficiently warned that my actions were nearing the point of being blocked. Not to mention being blocked for a month. I feel that is a little bit extreme. I can source at least some of my recent edits that Slrubenstein reverted, and I think I should be given a second chance, and, if possible, sufficiently warned of an impending block in the future. Additionally, I feel I should also apologize after reading some of Slrubenstien's comments with Chensiyuan. If it means anything, I am sorry, and I realize a lot of people seem to be misinterpreting me. I am learning english better every day, and I will always try to improve my contributions.
Decline reason:
Declined for now, pending a response to the comments below. Mango juice talk 15:05, 27 February 2008 (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.
Colleenthegreat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have answered the comments, like Mangojuice asked, and have readded this template as suggested.
Decline reason:
You're answers below are defensive and evasive and show no evidence that you plan to stop your disruptive edits in the future. Since I see no evidence of contrition nor any desire to cease the problematic edits, I am declining this unblock request. — Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:51, 28 February 2008 (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.
To be clear - the comments on the talk:Jesus page are only 1/3 of the root cause for the block.
virtually all other edits this editor has made fall into two categories:
And there you have it - virtually all edits this editor has made at Wikipedia. This person is just not ready to help write an encyclopedia. I suggest that s/he use the next month constructively, by studying our core policies and looking at featured articles to see how our core policies are actually expressed, and by researching topics s/he really cares about - serious research, reading reliable sources of notable views, so that when s/he returns s/he can contribute to articles without being reverted every time. A month is not too long to wait, especially for someone who clearly has a lot to learn. In the meantime, unblocking just means this editor can go back to using Wikipedia as a personal playground for disruptive edits. No, the block should stay. Colleanthegreat, if you genuinely want to help write an encyclopedia, spend the four weeks reading and rereading our core policies, just read and learn how people work on articles, and research topics you really care about, research them properly, so when you come back you can edit and your edits will actually help the project rather than hinder it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Given you willful disregard of the nine warnings given you by almost as many other editors to stop making nonsensical edits and violating NOR starting 19 October - you were warned 9 times over a five month period and up to the day I blocked you you continued making dozens of nonsense NOR edits at a time to as many articles, I am utterly unpersuaded by your plea to be unblocked. Those warnings didn't work to change your behavior; if you are unblocked today the block just amounts to another warning. It is time you really took seriously your probmlem and our being tired of letting you play games here. You can show evidence of taking this seriously by accepting the block and really thinking about what you did - I don't just mean all the silly, pointless, NOR or POV edits, I mean why you consistently disregarded warnings and advice to comply with our policies over the past five months. If you want to keep blaming Enlgish being your second language (if indeed it really is; everything you have written sounds like it was written by a native English speaker, and we have plenty of editors who speak English as a second language who do not change heroine to heroin ... and what - you deleted a link made by an editor without looking to see where the link went to, and you replaced it with a new link and you didn't even bother to see what you were linking to? That shows a massive lack of good faith in other editors, and I really am skeptical of your excuses about being a non-native English speaker ... you need to start taking Wikipedia's policies and its editors seriously, and given your repeated disrespect over the past 5 months I think a one month block is generous) ... if English really is your second language, spend the month working on your English and then return to Wikipedia a better editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So eloquent. Are you sure English is not your native reason? Is that still your excuse for your vandalism? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you found my last point constructive. I have suggested to Ricky that he mentor you on these points. If he is willing to mentor you, I have no objection to his (or her?) unblocking you. I do think it would be valuable for you tot have a more experienced editor to consult with. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Notice: I have renewed my IP address and created another account from which to edit and bypass my block. The block was unjustified and I was not given benefit of WP:AGF, so I will disregard it and continue my contributions to Wikipedia from my new account. Thanks to all who have supported me and I hope I am treated fairly with respect and neutrality in my continued efforts on Wikipedia as I employ my better understanding of our policy. Further refuting on my block can be found under the page history. Colleenthegreat ( talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I have posted 2 unblock requests already, but have been told by
User:Ricky81682 to try again. There is a lot of discussion on this page about the situation, but the main reason I am asking for an unblock (in addition to the reasons I mentioned in my other unblock requests) is that I am ready to contribute in %100 accordance with policy. The block was an understandable overreaction to my edit history, of which many of my edits have violated
WP:V and were unsourced (they've been called "silly"). I understand this fully now; nevertheless, I was not given a final warning (or any warning that I could be blocked), so one month was probably premature. Still, I understand why
User:Slrubenstein (the original blocker) jumped to the good-faith conclusion that I was a troll. I've had a long and difficult process of getting to understanding policy (I've been advised of many things I have done wrong, and always tried to learn from them). Now, I am hoping that I will no longer be mistaken for a bad-faith editor, as I have read extensively of our policies and guidelines and feel that I am ready to begin editing with a much improved understanding of how to make this encyclopedia better. Thanks to the admin who looks into this.
Colleenthegreat (
talk)
05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)}}
Hi COlleen. You asked Mangojuice, "Should I create a new account and start over?" You didn't ask for my advice but I will give it:I think this is a bad idea. Many people here are very suspicious about the possibility of sock-puppetry as a way fo deceiving people (read the policies on sock-puppets) and if you create a new account, you risk giving people the idea you have something to hide, a bad idea.Second, you should not feel you have anything to hide. We all make mistakes. If you make lots of silly edits that are trivial and possibly OR, yes, people ought to know that you have done this in the past. BUT, if you do not do this, if you are careful to learn from your mistakes and not to do them in the future, well, believe me people will forget all about your past mistakes. Just focus on learning how to be a good, constructive editor, seek advice when you are unsure about compliance with policies, and listen to other people, and you will not have to worry about your past record. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)