I think you missed the point of Andy's whole comment on Money (The Office episode). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.90.2 ( talk) 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't know why that was removed in the first place. - Mike Payne 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, I'm going to keep removing that sentence every time you insert it, and others are doing the same. It has no place here. - Mike Payne 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
hi would you be willing to comment on the Talk page for List of minor characters of Scrubs regarding your opinion on the toy unicorn Justin thanks--Jac16888 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have specific sources for these connections that these are indeed connections and not coincidences, don't add them back. Thanks.-- CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for your continued violations of WP:NOR after multiple warnings. -- Yamla 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I added some information to an article without citing my source and people deleted it because they said it was original research. Which is wasn't. So I readded it, except this time I cited the source. And some crazy admin blocked me for violating the no original research policy. If I cited the source, then obviously it's not original research.
Decline reason:
For one thing, insulting the blocking admin is not the best way to get yourself unblocked. And I find edits such as this nonconstructive and incivil. — Kurykh 04:57, 23 June 2007 (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.
Note that this user was repeatedly warned about WP:NOR and WP:RS, both of which the user violated here. This matter was discussed on the admin noticeboard and found to be original research. -- Yamla 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your blanket reverts to General of the Armies, which erase all of the material I added, is bordering on breaking the policy of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles not to mention that that sort of behavior is generally considered rude. I encourage you to discuss exactly what you have a problem with on the talk page before simply removing all edits not your own. Please don't start an edit war. - OberRanks 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AMrDolomite&diff=158063429&oldid=157233320 your note on my talk page. I have incorporated the copyedit wording _and_ the {{ otheruses4}} in a manner which clarifies the scope of that article, as well as directing readers to similarly named articles.
As some aside comments to try to improve your WP contributions and interactions with other editors, please try to assume good faith on the part of other people's edits. While the edit summary you left during the edit here was not very useful, at least the comment you left on my talk page provided some clues as to the content change you were thinking about.
However, as is obvious by the rest of this talk page, and the comment "Don't revert my edit again.", remaining civil is not as easy as one would think. Remember that neither you, nor I, nor any other editor has ownership of an article. We all have various watchlists and interests and try to improve WP content, formatting and structure.
I admit that I had not thought about other countries' ranks not being 5 star, and appreciate that once again the many eyes of WP editors caught that omission. However, what rank is the one to which you refer to in the statement, "General of the Army is not the only 5 star rank in the US army"?
Thanks — MrDolomite • Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point, but she said "I am" after talking on the phone, which made me think the question was about the wedding: i think she would have said "I do" or something like that instead if her mother asked about whether she loved Jim or not, just my own personal opinion, since there's no obvious answer. You bring up a good point though, and thanks for pointing out the mistake.
-Ryan
Is there some centralized discussion on this? I can't seem to find any. -- Hemlock Martinis 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the plot synopsis of the latest episode of House, I was looking forward to it as I haven't had a chance to watch it yet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.81.205 ( talk) 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It was an edit from an IP that had previous vandalism history, and it looked like it was removing part of a perfectly valid sentence. If it's incorrect, you can go ahead and remove it. Glass Cobra 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked you not to do it again and you did anyway. Creating three identical articles, against a merger vote, is against policy specificaly WP:OWN and WP:CON. The matter has been reported to the administrators. I think you will find they will not be on your side with this but I guess we will see. - OberRanks 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for respecting the opinion and not reverting the reestablishment of the Lieutenant General (United States) article back to a redirect. Thats a very good sign that people are now working together. - OberRanks 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a warning - you very nearly got blocked for this statement. The three revert rule is not a loophole to be tiptoed around. Reverting repeatedly is considered disruptive irrespective of precisely how many edits you make in any 24 hour period. Instead, I have protected the article. However, as the other "side" were almost as bad, I have protected the article instead. But continue edit warring against consensus and you will end up getting blocked. I notice you are discussing much of this "General" business in other areas, and would suggest you continue to do so, as progress is being made. Neil ☎ 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Chief Marshal and Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. -- Dmitry ( talk • contibs ) 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Bliss and March, I'm not sure there's a single online source that references all that information. Essentially, the temporary ranks of general and lieutenant general were only authorized in the National Army, which was the conscript/volunteer force authorized by emergency legislation for World War I (the equivalent of the World War II Army of the United States). Only two temporary generals were actually authorized for the National Army, so when Bliss was replaced by March as chief of staff, Bliss was made a brevet general to maintain his four-star status for the duration of the war (which I guess made him a temporary temporary general). The National Army was disestablished on June 30, 1920 by the Army Reorganization Act of that year, and the general and lieutenant general ranks went with it. Pershing only got to keep his rank thanks to special Congressional legislation that commissioned him a permanent general in the Regular Army. See the following articles from the NYTimes free archive:
"Rank of General for Bliss and March: Former Gets Brevet Title for Services Abroad - Latter Becomes Chief of Staff", The New York Times, May 21, 1918
"House Committee For Two Generals: Pershing Wins Unanimous Vote, March by 8 to 7 on Non-partisan Decision", The New York Times, July 31, 1919
"Only Major Generals Now; March, Liggett and Bullard Lose War Rank", The New York Times, June 30, 1920
Bliss and March retired as major generals, but were advanced to general on the retired list in 1930, when Congress passed legislation that restored all retired officers to their highest wartime ranks. You can reference this in the individual Bliss and March biographies in Commanding Generals, or by consulting the NYTimes pay archive. Morinao 06:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
While one can argue that before Public Law 94-479 was passed in 1976 to promote George Washington to the rank the relative status of that rank with that of General of the Army was unclear, that law unambiguously states that "the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." That leaves unresolved only whether Pershing's appointment as General of the Armies of the United States should be considered as equivalent to Washington's or not, since the law recreates the grade only for Washington. Indeed one could argue that Pershing's rank should be considered equivalent to General of the Army since otherwise he would be by date of appointment senior to Washington who was appointed to that rank as of July 4, 1976. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am aware of the Rank of Grand Marshal or equivalent rank are not used currently in the Republic of China rank tables, so it is more of historical note.
Regarding the Grand Marshal rank for Imperial China and the People's Republic, the rank was proposed for Mao but never accepted, so it would be just a proposal; as for Imperial usage, that I'm not too clear on. Aldis90 ( talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete messages from article talk pages as you did here. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I no longer believe that there was originally a list of seven seas. Seven is a mystical number in European culture and the phrase is probably just a fancy way to say "everywhere".
I didn't include the Aegean Sea because for purposes of the map and the list, I considered it as just part of the Mediterranean and not a distinct sea. The Mediterranean has many seas and the Adriatic, which I did include, is most separate from it.
I hope this helps. Thanks for your past and future work on one of my favorite articles.
Foobaz· o< 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you must create test pages, you will find it better to use names that start User:Shaheenjim/
. —
RHaworth (
Talk |
contribs) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My source for that statement is the Nielsen ratings, which are published in the "dayparts updates" on Media Life and through the NBC press releases (sometimes ABC publishes them, too)... the cable ratings are published by TV Newser. I did some OR a few months back to figure out why the ratings are as low as they are (part of the reason being FNS has no lead-in morning show like the other networks), but since that stuff isn't condoned by Wikipedia I didn't put it in the article. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note my response to your comment at Talk:General_of_the_Air_Force_(United_States)#Contradiction. Worldruler20 ( talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
While General of the Armies does rank below General of the Armies of the United States and above General of the Army, General of the Armies, like General of the Armies of the United States, is a "Special" grade and is not listed as a grade that can be given just by congressional confirmation. The grade must also, once again, be established via creation of a law by Congress and signed by the Persident. It in extremely unlikely that Congress will create the grade once again as it was created to be given to one person and one person only. General of the Army is still a grade that can be used by law, General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States are not. Neovu79 ( talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello - iirc, you are the one that has a copy of general MacArthur's promotion package? If so, could you place take a look to see if there is anything that can be used as a source for the six star image? See Talk:6 star rank#Six star image. Thanks! -- Marc Kupper| talk 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to say "There are a lot of people on here with no common sense", just because other editors happened to have concerns about your edits. You are no doubt aware of the strict requirements for verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research for Wikipedia articles. The web site in question does not meet these tests, so we cannot use it as a source. -- Ckatz chat spy 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be Ok to change it to "almost" twice? Kevin McCready ( talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You recently made some edits to the articles for Twelve Olympians and Homeric Hymns because you thought it was strange that they were implying that Hesiod wrote of the Titans but not of the Olympians. They weren't implying that. He wrote about the Olympians, but he didn't use the term "the Twelve Olympians." That's a specific subset of the Olympians.
So I reverted your edits to those two articles. If you also made a similar edit to the article for Titans (mythology) then that should be reverted too. Although I think you might not've made a similar edit to that article, even though the edits you made to the other articles were about that article. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
re:
and andYou'll want to recheck " the Olympians"... but the text, not a diff... This is a good case for needing a character block diff capability... being able to see whitespace changes as only an added linefeed, or so show the inserted words not processed in a line by line confused block where the whole shows red vice an inserted word AND the linefeed(s), etc., would have shown there weren't big changes there. Best regards // Fra nkB 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
-- VS talk 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Ckatz chat spy 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to follow a thread on three separate user talk pages and so replied on Talk:Orbit of the Moon#Concave or Convex? where the conversation can hopefully consolidate as it's about that article. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The half of the argument that was made here was moved to this page so it could be with the other half.
Some of the relevant pieces of this conversation have been moved to archived pages, and some of them have been censored by the other side to spare them the embarrassment of people knowing how badly I beat them. So I'm copying them all here to preserve them. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Its the exact same ship and if I knew how to post a photo I would to prove it, other then that; I only have this forum( http://www.cnc-source.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7360&st=0) as proof (in it we discussed it and I posted a photo from the episode), also I would ask that you consider the odds that two different groups created the exact same ship model independently (given that the Kodiak is a distinct design, albeit not so distinct as to not fit in the BSG fleet)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Really, would you like to put that up to an RfC? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will tell you the same thing - that argument is bunk. That has been tried before and in each case the result was the same the data that was questioned was removed. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see the point you have made, but the conclusion you reached is faulty. The facts you state are all cited later in the article. WP does not require the lead to be cited, since it is simply a summary of the article that is to come. If you delve deeper into the article you are using as an example, you will find cited references that back up these comments. Additionally the subject of the history of Jesus has been subject of scholarly research and debate for two millenniums, this subject is a little newer and still subject to debate.
The conclusions presented here are subjective in that the contributor went out and looked at data he found on the web and came to a conclusion about that data and presented it here, which is OR. On the other hand, the addition that Stu Phillips music can be heard is not subjective since the credits of the show list his contributions. Its is like the famous baked potato in The Empire Strikes Back asteroid belt scene, it has been written about many times and can be backed up by independent sources that meet the WP Sourcing guidelines; at this time that cannot be said about the ship in question but I am sure that this will change once a site such as IGN gets a hold of this. Once that is done it can be properly included. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
From this picture ( http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetcnc.gamespy.com/fms/images/potd/2294/1237774356_fullres.jpg), you can clearly see that it IS the Kodiak from the game Command&Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Spectre01 ( talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is the CC Koidak, the resembense is remarkable. No we cannot put that in. Here's why: Wikipedia is build on the five pillars, three of them being reliable sources, verifiability and no original research. Those are policies, which everyone must follow. WP:IAR is also policy, but still governed by the fove pillars; it is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot. Common sense is not even a guideline; it only represents a state of mind.
The CC Kodiak is not on it's own; in the Miniseries, we saw the Serenity soar over Caprica. It is mentioned because the producers acknowledged it, which made it notable. But no such thing has happened here... yet. As it is, this is an observation. Until the media or the producers point this out, we cannot put it in the article. As it is now, it's a ship from a video game. On it's own it is not a reason for inclusion. Wait until there is media coverage, or the episode's podcast is out; if it mentions the ship, we can put it in. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a comment that violated WP:Civil from Shaheenjim. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that you're supposed to warn someone before asking the administrators to block them. So consider this a warning. Don't delete my comments again. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.
Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.
The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.
My issues with him include:
Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (
diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.
I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.
I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.
I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.
-- Jeremy ( blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::While we're on the subject of
wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours?
Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else".
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Some administator has been posting libel about me. When I called him on it, he blocked me, allegedly for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. You can see the history at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. I should be unblocked. First of all, because I wasn't disrupting anything. Second, because I didn't make any personal attacks. When someone attacked my edits, I defended them, including saying why the other guy was wrong. My edits were made in conjunction with the Use Common Sense policy, and when someone disputed them, I said it's because they don't have common sense. That's not a personal attack. It's an attack on their position, which is relevant to the dispute at hand. And third, I wasn't edit warring. The other guy was. I was discussing the conflict on the talk page, per Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, and it was the other guy who was edit warring and not engaging in a discussion. There's no reason I should be blocked. I suspect that the admin only blocked me because he's upset that I called him out on his libel. Which brings up the fourth reason I should be unblocked, which is that admins aren't supposed to block people as a result of disputes in which they are taking part. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the history I cited refers to one discussion on Jeremy's talk page, where I demonstrated quite clearly why I wasn't the problem, and Jeremy was. Jeremy has subsequently censored that discussion, but you'll still be able to find it in the history. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the blocking admin responded to my request for an unblock at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. In it, he alleged that a single revert, along with discussions on the talk page, is edit-warring. Obviously an allegation that laughable is evidence that it's a pretext, and his real motivation is retaliation, since he's involved in the dispute. He also cited two prior blocks. First of all, note that two or three alleged violations over the course of years of productive editing is nothing. And second, those other two blocks were both ridiuclous too. In one I was blocked for violating the 3RR, even though I only reverted 3 times in a day. And in the other I was blocked for allegedly posting OR, even though I posted a source, so obviously it wasn't OR. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Posting an enormous screed which attacks other editors, including the blocking admin, and claiming that "per common sense" overrides Wikipedia policies, is perhaps not the best manner to request an unblock. Declined. Black Kite 01:18, 27 March 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wasn't claiming that common sense overrides Wikipedia policies. Common sense is one of Wikipedia's policies. Seriously, was I the only one who read that? And I'm not going on the offensive attacking other users. They're attacking me, and I'm merely defending myself. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This doesn't justify the edit warring or personal attacks. Focus on your actions, not those of others. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:39, 27 March 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My point was that there was no edit warring or personal attacks. Not on my part, anyway. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wrong, see [3] and generally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim. Sandstein 12:22, 27 March 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That certainly wasn't edit warring. And it wasn't a personal attack either. It was an attack on the substance of the issue. An attack that was subsequently proven right when I was blocked, and is being proven more and more right with every administrator who upholds the block. Let's see if I can prove it again. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
[4] may not be an edit war, but it IS an incivil personal attack. The rest of the discussion is moot, since there does not appear to be any effort to address this sort of incivility. All you seem to do is deflect discussion away from the real issue, which is your incivility. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:42, 27 March 2009 (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.
Suppose, hypothetically of course, that you were doing everything right, but you were posting on a site that was run by a bunch of little kids who are petty bureaucrats with no common sense. Suppose that they insisted that if you want to keep posting on the site, you should also stop using common sense. What would you do?
Despite the continuing personal attacks against blocking/reviewing admins, and admitted abuse of the unblock template, I think it might be best for admins not to further sanction this editor. The ideal outcome is Shaheenjim seeing that their conduct was outside the bounds of what we want in a collegial editing environment... but for now, I'll gladly settle for no further damage being done to their standing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Some admin permanently blocked me because he claimed that I said that I'd give the admins a good reason to block me. But that's not what I said. What I said was that I expect that some admin would block me for no good reason. Again. Looks like I was right. Again. You may unblock me now. Note that here the blocking admin said, "I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively." - Shaheenjim ( talk) Today, 4:07 pm (UTC−7)
Decline reason:
No indication that the user has acknowledged the issues that led to the block, or that they intend to adjust their behaviour. Ckatz chat spy 23:34, 3 April 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I quite clearly acknowledge that an admin's misinterpretation led to the block. Either that, or his stated reason was a pretext, and the block was merely retaliation for my statement that many of the admins on this site are petty. Which would've proved that point. And there's no reason for me to adjust my behavior, since the block wasn't a result of my behavior. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 13:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Same as the last four or five reasons, protecting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:35, 4 April 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
An admin denied my last unblock request, saying that he did it for the same reason as the last four or five reasons. That seems bizarre, in light of the fact that I'd only made two unblock requests for that block. He was probably confusing it with unblock requests for the previous block, which was a different issue. The fact that he didn't realize that makes me suspect his ruling on whether or not I should be unblocked was premature. Especially since the last four or five unblock denials from the previous issue contradicted each other. And since I explained in my last unblock request why the previous denial was wrong, and he wasn't able to address it. So now, you may unblock me, for the reason cited in the original unblock request of this block: the block was a result of an admin's misinterpretation of my statement. Note again that the blocking admin said he doesn't object to someone removing the block. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have wasted too much of too many admins' time with your complete refusal to get the point. You have now wasted your last unblock request. — Travis talk 01:39, 17 May 2009 (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 you missed the point of Andy's whole comment on Money (The Office episode). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.90.2 ( talk) 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't know why that was removed in the first place. - Mike Payne 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, I'm going to keep removing that sentence every time you insert it, and others are doing the same. It has no place here. - Mike Payne 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
hi would you be willing to comment on the Talk page for List of minor characters of Scrubs regarding your opinion on the toy unicorn Justin thanks--Jac16888 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have specific sources for these connections that these are indeed connections and not coincidences, don't add them back. Thanks.-- CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for your continued violations of WP:NOR after multiple warnings. -- Yamla 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I added some information to an article without citing my source and people deleted it because they said it was original research. Which is wasn't. So I readded it, except this time I cited the source. And some crazy admin blocked me for violating the no original research policy. If I cited the source, then obviously it's not original research.
Decline reason:
For one thing, insulting the blocking admin is not the best way to get yourself unblocked. And I find edits such as this nonconstructive and incivil. — Kurykh 04:57, 23 June 2007 (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.
Note that this user was repeatedly warned about WP:NOR and WP:RS, both of which the user violated here. This matter was discussed on the admin noticeboard and found to be original research. -- Yamla 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your blanket reverts to General of the Armies, which erase all of the material I added, is bordering on breaking the policy of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles not to mention that that sort of behavior is generally considered rude. I encourage you to discuss exactly what you have a problem with on the talk page before simply removing all edits not your own. Please don't start an edit war. - OberRanks 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AMrDolomite&diff=158063429&oldid=157233320 your note on my talk page. I have incorporated the copyedit wording _and_ the {{ otheruses4}} in a manner which clarifies the scope of that article, as well as directing readers to similarly named articles.
As some aside comments to try to improve your WP contributions and interactions with other editors, please try to assume good faith on the part of other people's edits. While the edit summary you left during the edit here was not very useful, at least the comment you left on my talk page provided some clues as to the content change you were thinking about.
However, as is obvious by the rest of this talk page, and the comment "Don't revert my edit again.", remaining civil is not as easy as one would think. Remember that neither you, nor I, nor any other editor has ownership of an article. We all have various watchlists and interests and try to improve WP content, formatting and structure.
I admit that I had not thought about other countries' ranks not being 5 star, and appreciate that once again the many eyes of WP editors caught that omission. However, what rank is the one to which you refer to in the statement, "General of the Army is not the only 5 star rank in the US army"?
Thanks — MrDolomite • Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point, but she said "I am" after talking on the phone, which made me think the question was about the wedding: i think she would have said "I do" or something like that instead if her mother asked about whether she loved Jim or not, just my own personal opinion, since there's no obvious answer. You bring up a good point though, and thanks for pointing out the mistake.
-Ryan
Is there some centralized discussion on this? I can't seem to find any. -- Hemlock Martinis 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the plot synopsis of the latest episode of House, I was looking forward to it as I haven't had a chance to watch it yet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.81.205 ( talk) 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It was an edit from an IP that had previous vandalism history, and it looked like it was removing part of a perfectly valid sentence. If it's incorrect, you can go ahead and remove it. Glass Cobra 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked you not to do it again and you did anyway. Creating three identical articles, against a merger vote, is against policy specificaly WP:OWN and WP:CON. The matter has been reported to the administrators. I think you will find they will not be on your side with this but I guess we will see. - OberRanks 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for respecting the opinion and not reverting the reestablishment of the Lieutenant General (United States) article back to a redirect. Thats a very good sign that people are now working together. - OberRanks 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a warning - you very nearly got blocked for this statement. The three revert rule is not a loophole to be tiptoed around. Reverting repeatedly is considered disruptive irrespective of precisely how many edits you make in any 24 hour period. Instead, I have protected the article. However, as the other "side" were almost as bad, I have protected the article instead. But continue edit warring against consensus and you will end up getting blocked. I notice you are discussing much of this "General" business in other areas, and would suggest you continue to do so, as progress is being made. Neil ☎ 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Chief Marshal and Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. -- Dmitry ( talk • contibs ) 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Bliss and March, I'm not sure there's a single online source that references all that information. Essentially, the temporary ranks of general and lieutenant general were only authorized in the National Army, which was the conscript/volunteer force authorized by emergency legislation for World War I (the equivalent of the World War II Army of the United States). Only two temporary generals were actually authorized for the National Army, so when Bliss was replaced by March as chief of staff, Bliss was made a brevet general to maintain his four-star status for the duration of the war (which I guess made him a temporary temporary general). The National Army was disestablished on June 30, 1920 by the Army Reorganization Act of that year, and the general and lieutenant general ranks went with it. Pershing only got to keep his rank thanks to special Congressional legislation that commissioned him a permanent general in the Regular Army. See the following articles from the NYTimes free archive:
"Rank of General for Bliss and March: Former Gets Brevet Title for Services Abroad - Latter Becomes Chief of Staff", The New York Times, May 21, 1918
"House Committee For Two Generals: Pershing Wins Unanimous Vote, March by 8 to 7 on Non-partisan Decision", The New York Times, July 31, 1919
"Only Major Generals Now; March, Liggett and Bullard Lose War Rank", The New York Times, June 30, 1920
Bliss and March retired as major generals, but were advanced to general on the retired list in 1930, when Congress passed legislation that restored all retired officers to their highest wartime ranks. You can reference this in the individual Bliss and March biographies in Commanding Generals, or by consulting the NYTimes pay archive. Morinao 06:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
While one can argue that before Public Law 94-479 was passed in 1976 to promote George Washington to the rank the relative status of that rank with that of General of the Army was unclear, that law unambiguously states that "the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." That leaves unresolved only whether Pershing's appointment as General of the Armies of the United States should be considered as equivalent to Washington's or not, since the law recreates the grade only for Washington. Indeed one could argue that Pershing's rank should be considered equivalent to General of the Army since otherwise he would be by date of appointment senior to Washington who was appointed to that rank as of July 4, 1976. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am aware of the Rank of Grand Marshal or equivalent rank are not used currently in the Republic of China rank tables, so it is more of historical note.
Regarding the Grand Marshal rank for Imperial China and the People's Republic, the rank was proposed for Mao but never accepted, so it would be just a proposal; as for Imperial usage, that I'm not too clear on. Aldis90 ( talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete messages from article talk pages as you did here. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I no longer believe that there was originally a list of seven seas. Seven is a mystical number in European culture and the phrase is probably just a fancy way to say "everywhere".
I didn't include the Aegean Sea because for purposes of the map and the list, I considered it as just part of the Mediterranean and not a distinct sea. The Mediterranean has many seas and the Adriatic, which I did include, is most separate from it.
I hope this helps. Thanks for your past and future work on one of my favorite articles.
Foobaz· o< 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you must create test pages, you will find it better to use names that start User:Shaheenjim/
. —
RHaworth (
Talk |
contribs) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My source for that statement is the Nielsen ratings, which are published in the "dayparts updates" on Media Life and through the NBC press releases (sometimes ABC publishes them, too)... the cable ratings are published by TV Newser. I did some OR a few months back to figure out why the ratings are as low as they are (part of the reason being FNS has no lead-in morning show like the other networks), but since that stuff isn't condoned by Wikipedia I didn't put it in the article. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note my response to your comment at Talk:General_of_the_Air_Force_(United_States)#Contradiction. Worldruler20 ( talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
While General of the Armies does rank below General of the Armies of the United States and above General of the Army, General of the Armies, like General of the Armies of the United States, is a "Special" grade and is not listed as a grade that can be given just by congressional confirmation. The grade must also, once again, be established via creation of a law by Congress and signed by the Persident. It in extremely unlikely that Congress will create the grade once again as it was created to be given to one person and one person only. General of the Army is still a grade that can be used by law, General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States are not. Neovu79 ( talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello - iirc, you are the one that has a copy of general MacArthur's promotion package? If so, could you place take a look to see if there is anything that can be used as a source for the six star image? See Talk:6 star rank#Six star image. Thanks! -- Marc Kupper| talk 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to say "There are a lot of people on here with no common sense", just because other editors happened to have concerns about your edits. You are no doubt aware of the strict requirements for verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research for Wikipedia articles. The web site in question does not meet these tests, so we cannot use it as a source. -- Ckatz chat spy 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be Ok to change it to "almost" twice? Kevin McCready ( talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You recently made some edits to the articles for Twelve Olympians and Homeric Hymns because you thought it was strange that they were implying that Hesiod wrote of the Titans but not of the Olympians. They weren't implying that. He wrote about the Olympians, but he didn't use the term "the Twelve Olympians." That's a specific subset of the Olympians.
So I reverted your edits to those two articles. If you also made a similar edit to the article for Titans (mythology) then that should be reverted too. Although I think you might not've made a similar edit to that article, even though the edits you made to the other articles were about that article. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
re:
and andYou'll want to recheck " the Olympians"... but the text, not a diff... This is a good case for needing a character block diff capability... being able to see whitespace changes as only an added linefeed, or so show the inserted words not processed in a line by line confused block where the whole shows red vice an inserted word AND the linefeed(s), etc., would have shown there weren't big changes there. Best regards // Fra nkB 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
-- VS talk 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Ckatz chat spy 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to follow a thread on three separate user talk pages and so replied on Talk:Orbit of the Moon#Concave or Convex? where the conversation can hopefully consolidate as it's about that article. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The half of the argument that was made here was moved to this page so it could be with the other half.
Some of the relevant pieces of this conversation have been moved to archived pages, and some of them have been censored by the other side to spare them the embarrassment of people knowing how badly I beat them. So I'm copying them all here to preserve them. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Its the exact same ship and if I knew how to post a photo I would to prove it, other then that; I only have this forum( http://www.cnc-source.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7360&st=0) as proof (in it we discussed it and I posted a photo from the episode), also I would ask that you consider the odds that two different groups created the exact same ship model independently (given that the Kodiak is a distinct design, albeit not so distinct as to not fit in the BSG fleet)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Really, would you like to put that up to an RfC? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will tell you the same thing - that argument is bunk. That has been tried before and in each case the result was the same the data that was questioned was removed. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see the point you have made, but the conclusion you reached is faulty. The facts you state are all cited later in the article. WP does not require the lead to be cited, since it is simply a summary of the article that is to come. If you delve deeper into the article you are using as an example, you will find cited references that back up these comments. Additionally the subject of the history of Jesus has been subject of scholarly research and debate for two millenniums, this subject is a little newer and still subject to debate.
The conclusions presented here are subjective in that the contributor went out and looked at data he found on the web and came to a conclusion about that data and presented it here, which is OR. On the other hand, the addition that Stu Phillips music can be heard is not subjective since the credits of the show list his contributions. Its is like the famous baked potato in The Empire Strikes Back asteroid belt scene, it has been written about many times and can be backed up by independent sources that meet the WP Sourcing guidelines; at this time that cannot be said about the ship in question but I am sure that this will change once a site such as IGN gets a hold of this. Once that is done it can be properly included. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
From this picture ( http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetcnc.gamespy.com/fms/images/potd/2294/1237774356_fullres.jpg), you can clearly see that it IS the Kodiak from the game Command&Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Spectre01 ( talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is the CC Koidak, the resembense is remarkable. No we cannot put that in. Here's why: Wikipedia is build on the five pillars, three of them being reliable sources, verifiability and no original research. Those are policies, which everyone must follow. WP:IAR is also policy, but still governed by the fove pillars; it is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot. Common sense is not even a guideline; it only represents a state of mind.
The CC Kodiak is not on it's own; in the Miniseries, we saw the Serenity soar over Caprica. It is mentioned because the producers acknowledged it, which made it notable. But no such thing has happened here... yet. As it is, this is an observation. Until the media or the producers point this out, we cannot put it in the article. As it is now, it's a ship from a video game. On it's own it is not a reason for inclusion. Wait until there is media coverage, or the episode's podcast is out; if it mentions the ship, we can put it in. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a comment that violated WP:Civil from Shaheenjim. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that you're supposed to warn someone before asking the administrators to block them. So consider this a warning. Don't delete my comments again. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.
Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.
The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.
My issues with him include:
Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (
diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.
I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.
I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.
I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.
-- Jeremy ( blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::While we're on the subject of
wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours?
Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else".
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Some administator has been posting libel about me. When I called him on it, he blocked me, allegedly for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. You can see the history at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. I should be unblocked. First of all, because I wasn't disrupting anything. Second, because I didn't make any personal attacks. When someone attacked my edits, I defended them, including saying why the other guy was wrong. My edits were made in conjunction with the Use Common Sense policy, and when someone disputed them, I said it's because they don't have common sense. That's not a personal attack. It's an attack on their position, which is relevant to the dispute at hand. And third, I wasn't edit warring. The other guy was. I was discussing the conflict on the talk page, per Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, and it was the other guy who was edit warring and not engaging in a discussion. There's no reason I should be blocked. I suspect that the admin only blocked me because he's upset that I called him out on his libel. Which brings up the fourth reason I should be unblocked, which is that admins aren't supposed to block people as a result of disputes in which they are taking part. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the history I cited refers to one discussion on Jeremy's talk page, where I demonstrated quite clearly why I wasn't the problem, and Jeremy was. Jeremy has subsequently censored that discussion, but you'll still be able to find it in the history. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the blocking admin responded to my request for an unblock at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. In it, he alleged that a single revert, along with discussions on the talk page, is edit-warring. Obviously an allegation that laughable is evidence that it's a pretext, and his real motivation is retaliation, since he's involved in the dispute. He also cited two prior blocks. First of all, note that two or three alleged violations over the course of years of productive editing is nothing. And second, those other two blocks were both ridiuclous too. In one I was blocked for violating the 3RR, even though I only reverted 3 times in a day. And in the other I was blocked for allegedly posting OR, even though I posted a source, so obviously it wasn't OR. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Posting an enormous screed which attacks other editors, including the blocking admin, and claiming that "per common sense" overrides Wikipedia policies, is perhaps not the best manner to request an unblock. Declined. Black Kite 01:18, 27 March 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wasn't claiming that common sense overrides Wikipedia policies. Common sense is one of Wikipedia's policies. Seriously, was I the only one who read that? And I'm not going on the offensive attacking other users. They're attacking me, and I'm merely defending myself. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This doesn't justify the edit warring or personal attacks. Focus on your actions, not those of others. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:39, 27 March 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My point was that there was no edit warring or personal attacks. Not on my part, anyway. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wrong, see [3] and generally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim. Sandstein 12:22, 27 March 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That certainly wasn't edit warring. And it wasn't a personal attack either. It was an attack on the substance of the issue. An attack that was subsequently proven right when I was blocked, and is being proven more and more right with every administrator who upholds the block. Let's see if I can prove it again. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
[4] may not be an edit war, but it IS an incivil personal attack. The rest of the discussion is moot, since there does not appear to be any effort to address this sort of incivility. All you seem to do is deflect discussion away from the real issue, which is your incivility. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:42, 27 March 2009 (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.
Suppose, hypothetically of course, that you were doing everything right, but you were posting on a site that was run by a bunch of little kids who are petty bureaucrats with no common sense. Suppose that they insisted that if you want to keep posting on the site, you should also stop using common sense. What would you do?
Despite the continuing personal attacks against blocking/reviewing admins, and admitted abuse of the unblock template, I think it might be best for admins not to further sanction this editor. The ideal outcome is Shaheenjim seeing that their conduct was outside the bounds of what we want in a collegial editing environment... but for now, I'll gladly settle for no further damage being done to their standing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Some admin permanently blocked me because he claimed that I said that I'd give the admins a good reason to block me. But that's not what I said. What I said was that I expect that some admin would block me for no good reason. Again. Looks like I was right. Again. You may unblock me now. Note that here the blocking admin said, "I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively." - Shaheenjim ( talk) Today, 4:07 pm (UTC−7)
Decline reason:
No indication that the user has acknowledged the issues that led to the block, or that they intend to adjust their behaviour. Ckatz chat spy 23:34, 3 April 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I quite clearly acknowledge that an admin's misinterpretation led to the block. Either that, or his stated reason was a pretext, and the block was merely retaliation for my statement that many of the admins on this site are petty. Which would've proved that point. And there's no reason for me to adjust my behavior, since the block wasn't a result of my behavior. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 13:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Same as the last four or five reasons, protecting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:35, 4 April 2009 (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.
Shaheenjim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
An admin denied my last unblock request, saying that he did it for the same reason as the last four or five reasons. That seems bizarre, in light of the fact that I'd only made two unblock requests for that block. He was probably confusing it with unblock requests for the previous block, which was a different issue. The fact that he didn't realize that makes me suspect his ruling on whether or not I should be unblocked was premature. Especially since the last four or five unblock denials from the previous issue contradicted each other. And since I explained in my last unblock request why the previous denial was wrong, and he wasn't able to address it. So now, you may unblock me, for the reason cited in the original unblock request of this block: the block was a result of an admin's misinterpretation of my statement. Note again that the blocking admin said he doesn't object to someone removing the block. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have wasted too much of too many admins' time with your complete refusal to get the point. You have now wasted your last unblock request. — Travis talk 01:39, 17 May 2009 (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.