You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SarahStierch ( talk) 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Amirite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amirite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page
Social media, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. Thanks,
Zymurgy (
talk)
00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who made the Articles for deletion nomination. Delicious carbuncle was the one who did so; you'd be better off talking with that user. Also, I can't close the nomination right now per the Articles for deletion project rules; it would have to be done by an admin. Lugia2453 ( talk) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. The main social media articles are referenced in the lead so it didn't seem appropriate to include a selection plus some newer ones per your edit. Good luck with your editing-- Zymurgy ( talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
SarahStierch ( talk) 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to refuse to respond to my points, I'll be forced to take this to ANI. You can't simply restore off-topic criticisms of another editor and then refuse to justify it. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
I'll get back to you later today -I'm about to go to work,
Thanks,
Philip
This is your last warning. The next time you remove an
Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. --
Gogo Dodo (
talk)
21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, I was in the middle of a discussion regarding my block when I was blocked. Please unblock my account since I have promised not to do personal attacks again even though I was informing the admin's about the editors behavior. I am new to WIkipedia so hope you can give me another chance. Also the people involved in the discussion were <(partially incorrect) age details removed>/ I hope you will fairly and objectively assess the matter. The fact that I made 74 edits to my own new article is not 'trolling'. Craddock1 06:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, you have made an egregious violation of policy by tracking a possibly underage editor to another website with the threat of contacting them in real life. This unblock request is declined. MBisanz talk 06:47, 2 January 2013 (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.
Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were under 16...Craddock1 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were <age details removed>. They have disclosed their age as <age details removed>. We were in a discussion to temporarily block me from editing an article and now I have been permanently blocked despite me explaining that i will not break the rules again?. Craddock1 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The outing was only one of many problematic parts of your conduct. The very reason you brought up the editor's age was to insult them for it, as well as many other instances of personal attacks and trolling at the ANI discussion. The reason the ANI conversation was going on, in turn, was because of your disruptive and unacceptable behavior at yet another discussion. You haven't given any reason to believe you've understood that, or that unblocking you wouldn't just lead to more disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:27, 2 January 2013 (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.
CommentThis is the link on their wikipedia page: (removed) Anyone who would click on this link would conclude (remove). How am I supposed to know not to click on links and make conclusions. I know now and have learnt me lesson and it won't happen again. Can you unblock me now please.
If you unblock me I promise to adhere to all rules. You can watch me closely and if I break one rule you can block me again...Craddock1 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I was in the middle of responsing to an AFC debate about an article I created. If I am not able to respond the article will get deleted since I have done hours of research on the topic.Craddock1 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment oh sorry - I thought this page was hiddenCraddock1 07:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've learnt my lesson now so can you unblock me please?Craddock1 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.
The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.
I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior
I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nobody should give a shit about Wikipedians' age. It is absolutely irrelevant and highly offensive. I don't see how you can be unblocked outside of WP:OFFER. Max Semenik ( talk) 09:22, 2 January 2013 (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.
I think everyone deserves a fair chance at getting unblocked. I'm not an admin, but I'm fairly familiar with how things work around here, so here's my approximation of what it would take for you to get unblocked:
To be honest, even with all this I can't promise you you'll get yourself unblocked. But this is the only way, IMHO, you can even have a shot at it. If you ask me, you're not a troll; a troll intentionally disrupts the project, but does little damage. I don't believe that your disruption has been intentional, and I think it's been far more disruptive than any run-of-the-mill trolling. The only way to get unblocked is to acknowledge that you understand why you were blocked, and that you will do everything in your power to avoid such behavior again. You've already filed three unblock requests that fail to do this. If you file a few more, admins may lose their patience, and revoke your talk page access. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Thanks for taking the time to write such a long message - I appreciate this.
In terms of what I said about the age - I didn't mean to cause offense. I thought I read somewhere that you had to be over 18 to make these decisions but I think I was getting confused with the check user privileges.
I have already read some of those policies but will read the rest later today. I am not a troll - I just need time to get used to all these acronyms, policies etc.
From what started out with me writing an article about my favourite website has turned into a massive thing which was not what I was expecting.
I really don't have any more time to argue and debate with the usrs since its clear they just want it deleted despite what I have said. For example one user just wrote there is another site called Amirite.net. This is Amirite.com!! This is precisely why I had to keep responding on the AFC delete page.
In terms of the rest I agree to do them (of course I can only apologise once I am unblocked) - can you apologise for me?
On a side note I am actually French and Jewish (shame about the gay part though:) Craddock1 09:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)}}
tlx|
from the start of the template, and the 2=
from before your reason. (If you're not sure how to do that, just say that you'd like to re-activate it, and I'll do it for you... but really, I promise I have a good reason.) —
Francophonie&Androphilie(
Je vous invite à me parler)
09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, Please see above. I have sincerely apologized and agreed to seek a mentor. I am not a troll, just new here. I have thoroughly read the rules now WP:OUTING, WP:NPA (especially WP:NPA#WHATIS), WP:BATTLE, WP:GD WP:GD#General advice), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and, of course, WP:GABCraddock1 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Restrictions are in place until April 3, 2013:
CommentThanks Go Phightins - much appreciatedCraddock1 02:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
'Comment Hi there - ok yes I agree - on a side note how long with the mentoring course take because I have full time work so will have limited time?Thanks, Craddock1 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the conditions of your unblocking was that you "you make NO edits to any live articles without the OK of your mentor". You have already broke that condition with your edit to the Amirite AfD with the same combative behavior. You are to stay away from the AfD and the article as your participation in both was one of the issues that resulted in your block. You are to focus your editing on your mentoring course and only your mentoring course. Consider this your one and only warning to not break the conditions of your unblock. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Can you explain to me where there was combative behvaior? The condition of the unblocking was that I make no edits to live articles. The AFD is not a live article - it is a debate where everyone is allowed a say - especially the creator of the article (albeit if I can't edit the article). No-where does it say I am not allowed to contribute to the AFD debate. Craddock1 ( talk) 06:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You have clearly sided with Peterwesco in the edit war as mentioned above and so you do not stand from an objective standpoint.
In addition accusing me of WP:LAWYER is a personal attack which is prohibited on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
Craddock1 ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, while Bwilkins said you were to make no edits to any article, Go Phightins! upped the ante (reasonably so, I might add) to "mak[ing] no edits to any page other than [ User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Craddock1] and your talk page without [his] permission". ("Page" refers to anything on Wikipedia, whereas "article" refers to the mainspace only.) So that's that. Furthermore, when you were blocked you were a few !votes away from being banned from that AfD, so you really should steer clear of it.
Your accusations against Gogo Dodo are really, really pushing it. If your first response continues to be to go after the person criticizing you, you're not going to keep your head above water much longer. You accuse him of making personal attacks for citing WP:LAWYER, while at the same time accusing him of violating WP:INVOLVED, a policy that an admin can be desysopped for violating.
I put a fair amount of work into getting you unblocked. I'd rather not see that go to waste. However, if I find incivility like this again, I will not hesitate to request that you be re-blocked. You've pushed your luck as far as you can, and I doubt you're going to get another inch. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 07:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I graded your test; sorry for the delay Go Phightins ! 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SarahStierch ( talk) 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Amirite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amirite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page
Social media, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. Thanks,
Zymurgy (
talk)
00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who made the Articles for deletion nomination. Delicious carbuncle was the one who did so; you'd be better off talking with that user. Also, I can't close the nomination right now per the Articles for deletion project rules; it would have to be done by an admin. Lugia2453 ( talk) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. The main social media articles are referenced in the lead so it didn't seem appropriate to include a selection plus some newer ones per your edit. Good luck with your editing-- Zymurgy ( talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
SarahStierch ( talk) 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to refuse to respond to my points, I'll be forced to take this to ANI. You can't simply restore off-topic criticisms of another editor and then refuse to justify it. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
I'll get back to you later today -I'm about to go to work,
Thanks,
Philip
This is your last warning. The next time you remove an
Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. --
Gogo Dodo (
talk)
21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, I was in the middle of a discussion regarding my block when I was blocked. Please unblock my account since I have promised not to do personal attacks again even though I was informing the admin's about the editors behavior. I am new to WIkipedia so hope you can give me another chance. Also the people involved in the discussion were <(partially incorrect) age details removed>/ I hope you will fairly and objectively assess the matter. The fact that I made 74 edits to my own new article is not 'trolling'. Craddock1 06:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, you have made an egregious violation of policy by tracking a possibly underage editor to another website with the threat of contacting them in real life. This unblock request is declined. MBisanz talk 06:47, 2 January 2013 (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.
Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were under 16...Craddock1 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were <age details removed>. They have disclosed their age as <age details removed>. We were in a discussion to temporarily block me from editing an article and now I have been permanently blocked despite me explaining that i will not break the rules again?. Craddock1 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The outing was only one of many problematic parts of your conduct. The very reason you brought up the editor's age was to insult them for it, as well as many other instances of personal attacks and trolling at the ANI discussion. The reason the ANI conversation was going on, in turn, was because of your disruptive and unacceptable behavior at yet another discussion. You haven't given any reason to believe you've understood that, or that unblocking you wouldn't just lead to more disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:27, 2 January 2013 (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.
CommentThis is the link on their wikipedia page: (removed) Anyone who would click on this link would conclude (remove). How am I supposed to know not to click on links and make conclusions. I know now and have learnt me lesson and it won't happen again. Can you unblock me now please.
If you unblock me I promise to adhere to all rules. You can watch me closely and if I break one rule you can block me again...Craddock1 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I was in the middle of responsing to an AFC debate about an article I created. If I am not able to respond the article will get deleted since I have done hours of research on the topic.Craddock1 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment oh sorry - I thought this page was hiddenCraddock1 07:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've learnt my lesson now so can you unblock me please?Craddock1 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.
The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.
I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior
I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nobody should give a shit about Wikipedians' age. It is absolutely irrelevant and highly offensive. I don't see how you can be unblocked outside of WP:OFFER. Max Semenik ( talk) 09:22, 2 January 2013 (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.
I think everyone deserves a fair chance at getting unblocked. I'm not an admin, but I'm fairly familiar with how things work around here, so here's my approximation of what it would take for you to get unblocked:
To be honest, even with all this I can't promise you you'll get yourself unblocked. But this is the only way, IMHO, you can even have a shot at it. If you ask me, you're not a troll; a troll intentionally disrupts the project, but does little damage. I don't believe that your disruption has been intentional, and I think it's been far more disruptive than any run-of-the-mill trolling. The only way to get unblocked is to acknowledge that you understand why you were blocked, and that you will do everything in your power to avoid such behavior again. You've already filed three unblock requests that fail to do this. If you file a few more, admins may lose their patience, and revoke your talk page access. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Thanks for taking the time to write such a long message - I appreciate this.
In terms of what I said about the age - I didn't mean to cause offense. I thought I read somewhere that you had to be over 18 to make these decisions but I think I was getting confused with the check user privileges.
I have already read some of those policies but will read the rest later today. I am not a troll - I just need time to get used to all these acronyms, policies etc.
From what started out with me writing an article about my favourite website has turned into a massive thing which was not what I was expecting.
I really don't have any more time to argue and debate with the usrs since its clear they just want it deleted despite what I have said. For example one user just wrote there is another site called Amirite.net. This is Amirite.com!! This is precisely why I had to keep responding on the AFC delete page.
In terms of the rest I agree to do them (of course I can only apologise once I am unblocked) - can you apologise for me?
On a side note I am actually French and Jewish (shame about the gay part though:) Craddock1 09:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)}}
tlx|
from the start of the template, and the 2=
from before your reason. (If you're not sure how to do that, just say that you'd like to re-activate it, and I'll do it for you... but really, I promise I have a good reason.) —
Francophonie&Androphilie(
Je vous invite à me parler)
09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Craddock1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, Please see above. I have sincerely apologized and agreed to seek a mentor. I am not a troll, just new here. I have thoroughly read the rules now WP:OUTING, WP:NPA (especially WP:NPA#WHATIS), WP:BATTLE, WP:GD WP:GD#General advice), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and, of course, WP:GABCraddock1 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Restrictions are in place until April 3, 2013:
CommentThanks Go Phightins - much appreciatedCraddock1 02:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
'Comment Hi there - ok yes I agree - on a side note how long with the mentoring course take because I have full time work so will have limited time?Thanks, Craddock1 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the conditions of your unblocking was that you "you make NO edits to any live articles without the OK of your mentor". You have already broke that condition with your edit to the Amirite AfD with the same combative behavior. You are to stay away from the AfD and the article as your participation in both was one of the issues that resulted in your block. You are to focus your editing on your mentoring course and only your mentoring course. Consider this your one and only warning to not break the conditions of your unblock. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Can you explain to me where there was combative behvaior? The condition of the unblocking was that I make no edits to live articles. The AFD is not a live article - it is a debate where everyone is allowed a say - especially the creator of the article (albeit if I can't edit the article). No-where does it say I am not allowed to contribute to the AFD debate. Craddock1 ( talk) 06:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You have clearly sided with Peterwesco in the edit war as mentioned above and so you do not stand from an objective standpoint.
In addition accusing me of WP:LAWYER is a personal attack which is prohibited on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
Craddock1 ( talk) 06:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, while Bwilkins said you were to make no edits to any article, Go Phightins! upped the ante (reasonably so, I might add) to "mak[ing] no edits to any page other than [ User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Craddock1] and your talk page without [his] permission". ("Page" refers to anything on Wikipedia, whereas "article" refers to the mainspace only.) So that's that. Furthermore, when you were blocked you were a few !votes away from being banned from that AfD, so you really should steer clear of it.
Your accusations against Gogo Dodo are really, really pushing it. If your first response continues to be to go after the person criticizing you, you're not going to keep your head above water much longer. You accuse him of making personal attacks for citing WP:LAWYER, while at the same time accusing him of violating WP:INVOLVED, a policy that an admin can be desysopped for violating.
I put a fair amount of work into getting you unblocked. I'd rather not see that go to waste. However, if I find incivility like this again, I will not hesitate to request that you be re-blocked. You've pushed your luck as far as you can, and I doubt you're going to get another inch. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 07:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I graded your test; sorry for the delay Go Phightins ! 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)