This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
(Regarding the archiving, I can turn on autoarchiving if you like, via a bot that just archives things after a certain amount of time; I set my page to about 8-10 days, but you can probably set yours longer since your talk is not as active).
So I think there's an way to start and see if an unblock is possible: what was wrong with your last edit ( [1])? How was that tone inappropriate? Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer if we start with evidence which is from prior to my block. However with this diff, everything was true expect for the word 'false', however I see that you have removed the Admin names that blocked me instead of the word 'false', can you tell me why you did this? Also with regards to the use of the word false, I belive that is correct, because the post is signed by me, and It is a true reflection of my opinion. Distributor108 ( talk) 16:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm requesting temporary unblock to allow me to more effectively communicate with necessary admins on their talk pages et.c in order to formulate a condition for my unblock. I promise not to edit any Wikipedia article pages if and until those condition are met.
Decline reason:
RIGHT HERE on your talkpage is where the conditions for unblock will be discussed; period. First: read WP:GAB. Follow the steps. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 20 April 2012 (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.
You don't seem to understand what vandalism is - please read WP:VANDAL. What you were involved in was a content dispute.
Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.
A disagreement about what the content of a page should be for which their are conflicting sources is NEVER vandalism. In the example you give, if there is conflicting authority their should be 3rd party sources that document that conflict. The disagreement (if it is notable) should be included in the text of the article. However, the danger I see here is that there is a possibility of original research since all I've seen is that source A says this and source B says this and your efforts to remove Tamil appear to be a synthesis of primary material. If Tamil was the official language and now it is not, the change should be documented (by news coverage of the event). A government produced document that leaves Tamil off the list of official languages may not meet the reliable sources standard. It appears from my brief review, that there is sufficient 3rd party sources that Tamil is an official language including independent coverage of the decision to include Tamil. If it has been removed, I would expect there to be similar reliable sources documenting the change. The way Wikipedia works, if there isn't 3rd party sources that document the change/fact, then it doesn't matter if it is true. In other words, even if it is true that Tamil is no longer an official language, if it can't be independently verified and documented (and not by a primary source that is biased and disputed by independent sources), then it will be difficult to reach consensus to include the material (at best the dispute could be noted in the text but not removed from the infobox - but even noting it in the text could have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues as described above). -- Trödel 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I admit to combative editing, and I would like to 2nd chance. Distributor108 ( talk) 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate and probably indefinite reblock. Drmies ( talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate reblock * Agreed - Signed Distributor108 ( talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I seemed to be under another block, for an IP edit, could you please look into this as I have not edited from any account besides this. If there HAS been edits, please assess behavioral patterns, editing styles and interests. Also I'd like to know what edits has taken place. Distributor108 ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The IP address has already been unblocked. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:06, 27 April 2012 (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.
CheckUser evidence has determined that the IP address or network of your account has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.
IP users (without an account): If you do not currently have a account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. Please use this form to request an account under your preferred username. Additionally, if you wish to request unblock, please submit that request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.
Registered users (with an account): If you already have an account in good standing, please follow these instructions. You may also request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.
Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not amend or remove this block without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Distributor108 ( talk) 15:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Forgive the brief interjection ... Distributor108, I'm working on setting up your archiving for you using MiszaBot. Should be setup shortly and will run at some point later today, but usually not immediately (or soon). Ravensfire ( talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the problem was the {{
talk archive}}
template. That made the system think this was itself an archive, which is what was suppressing the section editing. Miszabot will automatically archive the old stuff (you can set the time to whatever you like).
Qwyrxian (
talk) 13:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thanks for your contribution Distributor108 ( talk) 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not describe it as vanderlism, I used the disruptive editing template. The reasons fro describing it as disruptive editing, was due to the fact that there had previously been a consensus regarding what content to put in the history section with due weight, both editors completely went against this consensus, and did not even bother to instigate any form of discussion on the talk page prior to the edits. Please note that all the edits from those users were removed by another editor, such that my judgement wasn't wrong [4]. Distributor108 ( talk) 08:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review, please is unanimous in support of block. And we don't want people here who harass other editors off-wiki, like this -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (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.
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand that I should not have used disruptive editing warnings onto a two new users, also I should not have mixed real life with Wikipedia. I pledge not to this again Distributor108 ( talk) 09:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You said that last time. WP:OFFER may apply. Until a minimum of November 1, do not return to Wikipedia - either anonymously, nor through an account. Go be fruitful on another Wikimedia project ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 1 May 2012 (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.
This block is unjustified. Distributor108 ( talk) 12:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
(Regarding the archiving, I can turn on autoarchiving if you like, via a bot that just archives things after a certain amount of time; I set my page to about 8-10 days, but you can probably set yours longer since your talk is not as active).
So I think there's an way to start and see if an unblock is possible: what was wrong with your last edit ( [1])? How was that tone inappropriate? Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer if we start with evidence which is from prior to my block. However with this diff, everything was true expect for the word 'false', however I see that you have removed the Admin names that blocked me instead of the word 'false', can you tell me why you did this? Also with regards to the use of the word false, I belive that is correct, because the post is signed by me, and It is a true reflection of my opinion. Distributor108 ( talk) 16:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm requesting temporary unblock to allow me to more effectively communicate with necessary admins on their talk pages et.c in order to formulate a condition for my unblock. I promise not to edit any Wikipedia article pages if and until those condition are met.
Decline reason:
RIGHT HERE on your talkpage is where the conditions for unblock will be discussed; period. First: read WP:GAB. Follow the steps. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 20 April 2012 (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.
You don't seem to understand what vandalism is - please read WP:VANDAL. What you were involved in was a content dispute.
Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.
A disagreement about what the content of a page should be for which their are conflicting sources is NEVER vandalism. In the example you give, if there is conflicting authority their should be 3rd party sources that document that conflict. The disagreement (if it is notable) should be included in the text of the article. However, the danger I see here is that there is a possibility of original research since all I've seen is that source A says this and source B says this and your efforts to remove Tamil appear to be a synthesis of primary material. If Tamil was the official language and now it is not, the change should be documented (by news coverage of the event). A government produced document that leaves Tamil off the list of official languages may not meet the reliable sources standard. It appears from my brief review, that there is sufficient 3rd party sources that Tamil is an official language including independent coverage of the decision to include Tamil. If it has been removed, I would expect there to be similar reliable sources documenting the change. The way Wikipedia works, if there isn't 3rd party sources that document the change/fact, then it doesn't matter if it is true. In other words, even if it is true that Tamil is no longer an official language, if it can't be independently verified and documented (and not by a primary source that is biased and disputed by independent sources), then it will be difficult to reach consensus to include the material (at best the dispute could be noted in the text but not removed from the infobox - but even noting it in the text could have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues as described above). -- Trödel 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I admit to combative editing, and I would like to 2nd chance. Distributor108 ( talk) 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate and probably indefinite reblock. Drmies ( talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You have agreed to not be combative with other editors. You have agreed to seek WP:CONSENSUS and not be tendentious. You have agreed to be WP:CIVIL and to not attack others. Any repeated violations will lead to an immediate reblock * Agreed - Signed Distributor108 ( talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I seemed to be under another block, for an IP edit, could you please look into this as I have not edited from any account besides this. If there HAS been edits, please assess behavioral patterns, editing styles and interests. Also I'd like to know what edits has taken place. Distributor108 ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The IP address has already been unblocked. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:06, 27 April 2012 (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.
CheckUser evidence has determined that the IP address or network of your account has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.
IP users (without an account): If you do not currently have a account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. Please use this form to request an account under your preferred username. Additionally, if you wish to request unblock, please submit that request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.
Registered users (with an account): If you already have an account in good standing, please follow these instructions. You may also request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.
Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not amend or remove this block without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Distributor108 ( talk) 15:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Forgive the brief interjection ... Distributor108, I'm working on setting up your archiving for you using MiszaBot. Should be setup shortly and will run at some point later today, but usually not immediately (or soon). Ravensfire ( talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the problem was the {{
talk archive}}
template. That made the system think this was itself an archive, which is what was suppressing the section editing. Miszabot will automatically archive the old stuff (you can set the time to whatever you like).
Qwyrxian (
talk) 13:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thanks for your contribution Distributor108 ( talk) 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not describe it as vanderlism, I used the disruptive editing template. The reasons fro describing it as disruptive editing, was due to the fact that there had previously been a consensus regarding what content to put in the history section with due weight, both editors completely went against this consensus, and did not even bother to instigate any form of discussion on the talk page prior to the edits. Please note that all the edits from those users were removed by another editor, such that my judgement wasn't wrong [4]. Distributor108 ( talk) 08:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review, please is unanimous in support of block. And we don't want people here who harass other editors off-wiki, like this -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (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.
Distributor108 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand that I should not have used disruptive editing warnings onto a two new users, also I should not have mixed real life with Wikipedia. I pledge not to this again Distributor108 ( talk) 09:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You said that last time. WP:OFFER may apply. Until a minimum of November 1, do not return to Wikipedia - either anonymously, nor through an account. Go be fruitful on another Wikimedia project ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 1 May 2012 (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.
This block is unjustified. Distributor108 ( talk) 12:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)