PresidentistVB ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please either call me (757-481-1144) or email me at either the registered eddress for this account (drmattsoffice...) or at the email address registered for the account i created to try to resolve this issue, now over 17 months old (editor@americorps.ch) since it is impossible to compky with this request because my ability even to put this template at the nottom if this oage was disabled)How did I abuse email? What does that mean? Thank you. Dr Matt Hogendobler. Why is sn autoblick punishing me because i tried to comply by lighing in to Presidentist? So confusing and frustrating. Ha
Decline reason:
We will not contact you. Use UTRS for appeals. Max Semenik ( talk) 12:23, 10 November 2015 (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.
According to https://tools.wmflabs.org/amdb/ your last action occurred about 1.8 hours ago. Pursuant to WP's guidance for admins, I wish to state that in no uncertain terms should you or anyone else have defaulted to a perception that I am harassing any user, nor, for that matter have any of my actions, except as required according to WP:IAR, to protect my civil/constitutional rights in a section (which is not in any way an enitre "article" subject to the definition of WP:OWN), which was created using my own User identification and according to WP policy, as the title on an article page, which specifically states may not include content of potential cases of defamation or libel, but which, by inferred existence (and as manifested thereon), begs and forgives defamatory and libelous information, been personal attacks. Yes, I assumed control of the section which was created without reason other than to say I was guilty of personal attacks for calling other users "monkeys,' and administrators "birds of prey." According to WP:WIAPA (What is considered to be a personal attack?) , “There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:” In response to the specific allegations, "monkey" and "birds of prey" merely identify characteristics of behavior; all of which are documented as evidence in the related revision histories and, in both cases when references were initially made, at the time of the initial reference. Aside from the countering fact that I called myself (and used as my official signature) " Monkey Two," beginning with first use of that "monkey" reference, the reference to specific users or category of users as animals is not even listed in the indicators/examples of personal attacks, which, as certain as you seemed to be, makes the omission of their identification as examples, almost unbelievable! Re. harassment and your having cited legal threats: WP:NPLT “Handling: users should seek to clarify the user's intention (if unclear), explain this policy, and ask if they are willing to withdraw the threat. This helps to ensure that a mere misunderstanding or ignorance of our policies is not involved. Even if comments may not be per se legal threats, they may still fall under the scope of other policies related to disruption or incivility.”... It is important for me to note that Nonsenseferret followed protocol and asked me to clarify the intention of the statement. Unfortunately, before I was able to respond with an answer, you, DangerousPanda, blocked me, leading other users, like JzG, who also failed to research the documented historical content which clearly revealed all content to be research for a report being prepared to address Wikimedia Foundation’s recurring concerns of attrition and stagnant new user matriculations, to perceive, as if a consensus may be forming, that I am threatening legal action. “Evidence” as used in the queried section and queried by Nonsenseferret refers specifically to any data which I collected up to that point, and which could have been or may be used in that report. While you may have listed yourself as an admin willing to block in a difficult block user case, you were not, as an admin, harassed, and neither were any others. In my mind, considering the content of your email, you fully qualify as a "difficult block" admin, but I am not clear how, in my case, I qualified to be blocked. Beginning with /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Harrassment#Dealing_with_harassment and to the end of the article, it seems I am being compared to someone who actually threatened legal action, violence or outing. (Thanks for that.) [One could consider that defamatory, in and of itself.] Needless to say, considering the circumstances resulting in the creation of a section entitled PresidentistVB, which encourages disparaging remarks about me and my behavior, supported by the actions of WP admins, it is important to note that, although my efforts were to protect WMF and other users from becoming a party to the possible violations of federal criminal and/or civil laws; as advised: http://medianqes.onlineview.it/i.ashx?mid=89899276&mt=Photo (from Wikipedia's Terms of Use policy), considering an advisory warning which more aptly applies, like http://medianqes.onlineview.it/i.ashx?mid=89922340&mt=Photo, your "difficult" decision to block me effectively deprived me of my civil rights to control (or, yes, "own" the control of) content appearing in a section of an article specifically inviting critical and disparaging commentary from other users (which I perceive as an invitation by a Wikipedia administrator to appear in a section of an article endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation and post comments about the topic without defaming or libeling another user). The section itself appears to break WMF policies, even though it was created in compliance with WP policy. But there's no requirement that other users incriminate themselves, even if WMF does. So, to quote from a recent email, which I should also state I appreciated, "So, rethink you assumptions and rethink your statements, then rethink your actions." -- This email was modified for publication as sent by user "PresidentistVB" on the English Wikipedia to user "DangerousPanda". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
External references: ...the law requires that litigants direct their efforts at the speakers themselves and not the forums... If Bauer can find evidence that a representative of Wikipedia was responsible for the offending text, the charges could be refiled. It is the policy of the United States... to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
Additional Users Summonsed: Sue_Gardner, Jimbo_Wales, TenOfAllTrades, Scoobydunk PresidentistVB ( talk) 11:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
What harassment is, according to What harassment is not: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 14:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 15:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
(N.B. This is a copy of a conversation posted on a talk page elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is being reposted here for the sake of posterity and future reference.) PresidentistVB ( talk) 14:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been bending over backwards to work with you on this article but you ignore everything to have your preferred view. Wikipedia is about collaboration to achieve a NPOV, not for expressing your personal views on a subject to the exclusion of everyone else's. As I said earlier, you can not delete the word "effectively" without supplying a source for the claim "most historians." Contrary to your claim that he didn't, in his book, Toppin does say "in effect" which supports use of the word and it does convey what historians believe. Toppin is clear on what he meant by "in effect" because he says that slavery was likely a custom but not legal. Wayne ( talk) 08:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither of you are behaving professionally. Neither of you are objective. That said, I am choosing sides. I always fight, right or wrong, for the underdog. Fortunately, though he's unable even to scratch the surface of the skull encasing a single-minded brain, he is more correct in his assessments, and he is not a hypocrite, like his opponent. (I can cite where I have already proved it to be true elsewhere on this talk page.) PresidentistVB ( talk) 13:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi PresidentistVB! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
PresidentistVB, let me jot down a few thoughts here. If you want to reply, you can just do it here—typing [[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]]
like you've been doing works perfectly to get my attention.
{{WP:DNIV}}
. The curly braces mean it actually copies over the entire policy page; it doesn't do any harm but it's a bit confusing to read so it's better just to link by using brackets: [[WP:DNIV]]
. That produces:
WP:DNIV.
Although race always defined the line between temporary and lifelong bondage in the colonial period, race did not always define the line between slavery and freedom. In fact, up until the mid-seventeenth century in the Caribbean and for the better part of the seventeenth century in the Chesapeake, most people reduced to chattel servitude entered the condition due to their sheer vulnerability to enslavement, not by virtue of their race, which in the modern meaning of the term did not yet exist. The vulnerability of these people to “indentured servitude,” or “bond slavery” as contemporaries also called the condition, existed as a function of their impoverishment. [1]
Just to repeat what I said on IRC: Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. The reason is that Wikipedia is user-submitted content without any meaningful editorial oversight. Believing something contentious merely because it's on Wikipedia is not a good idea. Rather, Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources - if some statement is doubtful, you should check the sources and try to verify the statement in that way. Huon ( talk) 02:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Electric Wombat: , @ HelenOnline:,hilite @ Bgwhite:, below @ Donner60: to, @ Seraphimblade:,see @ LFaraone:, content @ Irongargoyle:
am looking for an admin who is able to look over article-related issues re. historical figures and events...
having NPOV issues, edit warring, etc. problems with a strong-arming editor i fondly refer to as the pit bull... ha!....
anyone know anyone who can peek in and then surreptitiously advise me on what to do?
I may be making some headway, but it's only because I am having to fight fire with fire... and I don't like it
Thanks in advance!
Matt. Dr. Matt ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit is entirely inappropriate and only serves to perpetuate a battlefield mentality. That kind of negatively charged comment only makes the problem worse. Please don't repeat that behavior. I've read some of your comments and I know you're fully capable of editing in a collaborative manner. Ish dar ian 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
the panda ₯’ 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Courtesy message to those whom I wish to acknowledge as model Admins; some good (TenofAllTrades); some not (Panda)... yet, and speak with for the report... I guess that will be in 60 hours or so... I wish someone like @ TenOfAllTrades: would take the time to do their due diligence and see what it is I am doing for WMF... I am not wound up. I am 2 hours late on my report to corporate OUR CORPORATE! Read below, please and research if you mut. I restored the block because he added depth to the report, but that didn't help this situation one bit. - Thanks. Dr.
Original Message --------
Subject: Am working on a project for Sue Gardner/Stewards and Advisory Board Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:14:21 -0400 From: Matt <hogident@cox.net> To: wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org CC: Matt H <hogident@cox.net>
I've been in communication with them all and was completing an email to Jimmy Wales re the report (it is about, ironically Admin abuse of power, the culture within, and the source of the attrition issues facing WMF for the past 3 years). In short THEY (formerly YOU) set an example of bullying behavior. That's not important. . Part of the research process requires me to invoke the best and worst behavior in order to have data for the study. DangerousPanda just blocked me for 60 hours and I have been keeping Sue, Jimmy, the Stewards and Oversight up to date... I had a report due into them over 90 mins ago. What am I going to do now? HELP! Thanks Dr. Matt Hogendobler
Dr. Matt (
talk) 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC) User:PresidentistVB
P. S. He's bragging about it in the Admin noticeboards group. Fortunately for him, there's another admin with some sense to share with him. This is perfect data! But I am still in jail and I don't dare call Sue on a Sunday.
To be clear, PresidentistVB, I do not endorse or approve of the way you have behaved. Nor do I disagree with the block placed by DangerousPanda. My sole quibble with DangerousPanda was over what amounts to a bureaucratic question.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but the way that you're going about it isn't in any way helpful. Conducting (or claiming to be conducting) unsanctioned, deliberately-provocative breaching experiments – "Part of the research process requires me to invoke the best and worst behavior in order to have data for the study" – is entirely unwelcome, utterly inappropriate, and likely to get you blocked indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- nonsense ferret 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB ( talk) 14:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 15:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB (
talk) 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB (
talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB (
talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't make heads nor tails of your posts here, but I've noticed at least 2 lies, and it can only be intentionally incoherent. I'm nipping this in the bud. please find another website to contribute to; you are disrupting this one. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello PresidentistVB. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Norfolk Chapter SAR".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Norfolk Chapter SAR}}
, paste it in the edit box at
this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo ( talk) 21:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please either call me (757-481-1144) or email me at either the registered eddress for this account (drmattsoffice...) or at the email address registered for the account i created to try to resolve this issue, now over 17 months old (editor@americorps.ch) since it is impossible to compky with this request because my ability even to put this template at the nottom if this oage was disabled)How did I abuse email? What does that mean? Thank you. Dr Matt Hogendobler. Why is sn autoblick punishing me because i tried to comply by lighing in to Presidentist? So confusing and frustrating. Ha
Decline reason:
We will not contact you. Use UTRS for appeals. Max Semenik ( talk) 12:23, 10 November 2015 (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.
According to https://tools.wmflabs.org/amdb/ your last action occurred about 1.8 hours ago. Pursuant to WP's guidance for admins, I wish to state that in no uncertain terms should you or anyone else have defaulted to a perception that I am harassing any user, nor, for that matter have any of my actions, except as required according to WP:IAR, to protect my civil/constitutional rights in a section (which is not in any way an enitre "article" subject to the definition of WP:OWN), which was created using my own User identification and according to WP policy, as the title on an article page, which specifically states may not include content of potential cases of defamation or libel, but which, by inferred existence (and as manifested thereon), begs and forgives defamatory and libelous information, been personal attacks. Yes, I assumed control of the section which was created without reason other than to say I was guilty of personal attacks for calling other users "monkeys,' and administrators "birds of prey." According to WP:WIAPA (What is considered to be a personal attack?) , “There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:” In response to the specific allegations, "monkey" and "birds of prey" merely identify characteristics of behavior; all of which are documented as evidence in the related revision histories and, in both cases when references were initially made, at the time of the initial reference. Aside from the countering fact that I called myself (and used as my official signature) " Monkey Two," beginning with first use of that "monkey" reference, the reference to specific users or category of users as animals is not even listed in the indicators/examples of personal attacks, which, as certain as you seemed to be, makes the omission of their identification as examples, almost unbelievable! Re. harassment and your having cited legal threats: WP:NPLT “Handling: users should seek to clarify the user's intention (if unclear), explain this policy, and ask if they are willing to withdraw the threat. This helps to ensure that a mere misunderstanding or ignorance of our policies is not involved. Even if comments may not be per se legal threats, they may still fall under the scope of other policies related to disruption or incivility.”... It is important for me to note that Nonsenseferret followed protocol and asked me to clarify the intention of the statement. Unfortunately, before I was able to respond with an answer, you, DangerousPanda, blocked me, leading other users, like JzG, who also failed to research the documented historical content which clearly revealed all content to be research for a report being prepared to address Wikimedia Foundation’s recurring concerns of attrition and stagnant new user matriculations, to perceive, as if a consensus may be forming, that I am threatening legal action. “Evidence” as used in the queried section and queried by Nonsenseferret refers specifically to any data which I collected up to that point, and which could have been or may be used in that report. While you may have listed yourself as an admin willing to block in a difficult block user case, you were not, as an admin, harassed, and neither were any others. In my mind, considering the content of your email, you fully qualify as a "difficult block" admin, but I am not clear how, in my case, I qualified to be blocked. Beginning with /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Harrassment#Dealing_with_harassment and to the end of the article, it seems I am being compared to someone who actually threatened legal action, violence or outing. (Thanks for that.) [One could consider that defamatory, in and of itself.] Needless to say, considering the circumstances resulting in the creation of a section entitled PresidentistVB, which encourages disparaging remarks about me and my behavior, supported by the actions of WP admins, it is important to note that, although my efforts were to protect WMF and other users from becoming a party to the possible violations of federal criminal and/or civil laws; as advised: http://medianqes.onlineview.it/i.ashx?mid=89899276&mt=Photo (from Wikipedia's Terms of Use policy), considering an advisory warning which more aptly applies, like http://medianqes.onlineview.it/i.ashx?mid=89922340&mt=Photo, your "difficult" decision to block me effectively deprived me of my civil rights to control (or, yes, "own" the control of) content appearing in a section of an article specifically inviting critical and disparaging commentary from other users (which I perceive as an invitation by a Wikipedia administrator to appear in a section of an article endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation and post comments about the topic without defaming or libeling another user). The section itself appears to break WMF policies, even though it was created in compliance with WP policy. But there's no requirement that other users incriminate themselves, even if WMF does. So, to quote from a recent email, which I should also state I appreciated, "So, rethink you assumptions and rethink your statements, then rethink your actions." -- This email was modified for publication as sent by user "PresidentistVB" on the English Wikipedia to user "DangerousPanda". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
External references: ...the law requires that litigants direct their efforts at the speakers themselves and not the forums... If Bauer can find evidence that a representative of Wikipedia was responsible for the offending text, the charges could be refiled. It is the policy of the United States... to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
Additional Users Summonsed: Sue_Gardner, Jimbo_Wales, TenOfAllTrades, Scoobydunk PresidentistVB ( talk) 11:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
What harassment is, according to What harassment is not: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 12:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 14:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 15:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
(N.B. This is a copy of a conversation posted on a talk page elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is being reposted here for the sake of posterity and future reference.) PresidentistVB ( talk) 14:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been bending over backwards to work with you on this article but you ignore everything to have your preferred view. Wikipedia is about collaboration to achieve a NPOV, not for expressing your personal views on a subject to the exclusion of everyone else's. As I said earlier, you can not delete the word "effectively" without supplying a source for the claim "most historians." Contrary to your claim that he didn't, in his book, Toppin does say "in effect" which supports use of the word and it does convey what historians believe. Toppin is clear on what he meant by "in effect" because he says that slavery was likely a custom but not legal. Wayne ( talk) 08:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither of you are behaving professionally. Neither of you are objective. That said, I am choosing sides. I always fight, right or wrong, for the underdog. Fortunately, though he's unable even to scratch the surface of the skull encasing a single-minded brain, he is more correct in his assessments, and he is not a hypocrite, like his opponent. (I can cite where I have already proved it to be true elsewhere on this talk page.) PresidentistVB ( talk) 13:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi PresidentistVB! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
PresidentistVB, let me jot down a few thoughts here. If you want to reply, you can just do it here—typing [[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]]
like you've been doing works perfectly to get my attention.
{{WP:DNIV}}
. The curly braces mean it actually copies over the entire policy page; it doesn't do any harm but it's a bit confusing to read so it's better just to link by using brackets: [[WP:DNIV]]
. That produces:
WP:DNIV.
Although race always defined the line between temporary and lifelong bondage in the colonial period, race did not always define the line between slavery and freedom. In fact, up until the mid-seventeenth century in the Caribbean and for the better part of the seventeenth century in the Chesapeake, most people reduced to chattel servitude entered the condition due to their sheer vulnerability to enslavement, not by virtue of their race, which in the modern meaning of the term did not yet exist. The vulnerability of these people to “indentured servitude,” or “bond slavery” as contemporaries also called the condition, existed as a function of their impoverishment. [1]
Just to repeat what I said on IRC: Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. The reason is that Wikipedia is user-submitted content without any meaningful editorial oversight. Believing something contentious merely because it's on Wikipedia is not a good idea. Rather, Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources - if some statement is doubtful, you should check the sources and try to verify the statement in that way. Huon ( talk) 02:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Electric Wombat: , @ HelenOnline:,hilite @ Bgwhite:, below @ Donner60: to, @ Seraphimblade:,see @ LFaraone:, content @ Irongargoyle:
am looking for an admin who is able to look over article-related issues re. historical figures and events...
having NPOV issues, edit warring, etc. problems with a strong-arming editor i fondly refer to as the pit bull... ha!....
anyone know anyone who can peek in and then surreptitiously advise me on what to do?
I may be making some headway, but it's only because I am having to fight fire with fire... and I don't like it
Thanks in advance!
Matt. Dr. Matt ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit is entirely inappropriate and only serves to perpetuate a battlefield mentality. That kind of negatively charged comment only makes the problem worse. Please don't repeat that behavior. I've read some of your comments and I know you're fully capable of editing in a collaborative manner. Ish dar ian 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
the panda ₯’ 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Courtesy message to those whom I wish to acknowledge as model Admins; some good (TenofAllTrades); some not (Panda)... yet, and speak with for the report... I guess that will be in 60 hours or so... I wish someone like @ TenOfAllTrades: would take the time to do their due diligence and see what it is I am doing for WMF... I am not wound up. I am 2 hours late on my report to corporate OUR CORPORATE! Read below, please and research if you mut. I restored the block because he added depth to the report, but that didn't help this situation one bit. - Thanks. Dr.
Original Message --------
Subject: Am working on a project for Sue Gardner/Stewards and Advisory Board Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:14:21 -0400 From: Matt <hogident@cox.net> To: wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org CC: Matt H <hogident@cox.net>
I've been in communication with them all and was completing an email to Jimmy Wales re the report (it is about, ironically Admin abuse of power, the culture within, and the source of the attrition issues facing WMF for the past 3 years). In short THEY (formerly YOU) set an example of bullying behavior. That's not important. . Part of the research process requires me to invoke the best and worst behavior in order to have data for the study. DangerousPanda just blocked me for 60 hours and I have been keeping Sue, Jimmy, the Stewards and Oversight up to date... I had a report due into them over 90 mins ago. What am I going to do now? HELP! Thanks Dr. Matt Hogendobler
Dr. Matt (
talk) 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC) User:PresidentistVB
P. S. He's bragging about it in the Admin noticeboards group. Fortunately for him, there's another admin with some sense to share with him. This is perfect data! But I am still in jail and I don't dare call Sue on a Sunday.
To be clear, PresidentistVB, I do not endorse or approve of the way you have behaved. Nor do I disagree with the block placed by DangerousPanda. My sole quibble with DangerousPanda was over what amounts to a bureaucratic question.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but the way that you're going about it isn't in any way helpful. Conducting (or claiming to be conducting) unsanctioned, deliberately-provocative breaching experiments – "Part of the research process requires me to invoke the best and worst behavior in order to have data for the study" – is entirely unwelcome, utterly inappropriate, and likely to get you blocked indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- nonsense ferret 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB ( talk) 14:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB ( talk) 15:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB (
talk) 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB (
talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
PresidentistVB (
talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't make heads nor tails of your posts here, but I've noticed at least 2 lies, and it can only be intentionally incoherent. I'm nipping this in the bud. please find another website to contribute to; you are disrupting this one. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello PresidentistVB. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Norfolk Chapter SAR".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Norfolk Chapter SAR}}
, paste it in the edit box at
this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo ( talk) 21:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)