You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's pretty clear that this account was created solely for trolling; a block until the AfD is over should suffice. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock|No trolling here.}}
By way of explaining my edit, it's not encyclopedic to caption that photo "Future GNAA members" unless Wikipedia is actually claiming that those people are future GNAA members. Since we don't even know who those people are, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that's not acceptable. The picture and the caption are there to illustrate the type of image that GNAA works with. Thus, we caption it, not the way GNAA captions it, but in a more detatched way, where the caption is not offered for the truth of the matter it asserts, but as an illustration. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've posted this on the relevant page itself, but I'm curious what you mean about "the informality of the title" when it comes to the song. BigHaz 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're serious, and not being a troll or anything, then I am most flattered and delighted to accept. Can you please activate your e-mail.-- Poetlister 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain this diff:
[1]
And this one in userspace:
[2]
Throw in comments like
[3], your commentary on 2 AfD
s:
WP:AFD/Du Bist and
Objective validity of astrology, and your previous block
[4], and it sure looks like you're trolling.
--
Samir
धर्म
04:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I made a good faith edit to Gay Nigger Association of America, specifically in removing an image that I did not believe improved the article. You reverted it as vandalism, which was inappropriate. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism to insure you understand what vandalism is and is not; in case you're not aware, it can be a bit insulting to good-faith contributors to treat their edits as vandalism. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions in this matter. -- SCZenz 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey dude, if you're going to pretend to be a new user, you have to not show so much familiarity with the policies and processes of Wikipedia. And maybe not edit battleground articles. Or nominate shitstirrers for adminship. Still, enjoy your time here, brief as it's likely to be. Grace Note 01:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
First, the contents and caption of the image indicated that it was more self-promotion by the GNAA; second, its copyright status is unclear at best, and it seems to have been photoshopped. - Mike Rosoft 07:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop adding GNAA images to non-GNAA articles. They are not informative because there is every reason to believe they are edited, staged, or otherwise misleading. I will not insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know this perfectly well, so if you continue such edits I will block you for deliberate disruption. -- SCZenz 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
unblock - Admin involved in a dispute with me blocked me, falsely claiming I was adding an image that was a 'GNAA image', despite the fact that it was relevant to the article I added it to and hardly an image that was exclusive to the GNAA.
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. <!-- Template:Test2-n (Second level warning) --> -- SCZenz 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
unblock|Administrator involved in an ongoing content dispute with me blocked me for things I've already been blocked for, and edits I made to Fairbank Memorial Park that were neither vandalism nor nonsense, as he falsely claims. It may be helpful to the potentially unblocking administrator to read through the discussion about this article I've had with the blocking administrator on my talk page. Also, this administrator's actions seem to violate Wikipedia's ban policy because the administrator blocked me because he was involved in a content dispute with me.
I disagree; the block looks fine. Your edits were nonsense, and you were adequately warned to stop adding it but you continued. 31 Hours is a standard block length and used by many administrators. -- pgk( talk) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the link in the Downsview (TTC) article, Stanfordanson! Daloonik 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stanfordandson, please stop trolling. If you don't want to contribute meaningfully to WP, please refrain from editing. Thank you, Crum375 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edit. Garion96 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed user page to remove "reason" for the blocks. Don't think it's fair to put down a purported reason for blocks and to duke it out with admins over the rationale for the blocks on a user page. Hope it's okay with you. -- Samir धर्म 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have copy edited some of MONGO's blatant and false errors in spelling and grammar. This is not a personal attack.
I have removed your blatant and false mischaracterization [6] from the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do not put this back in the review. Argue about the merits of the deletion, and not your opposition. This is your only warning on this issue.-- MONGO 08:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not personally attack me in that deletion review again.-- MONGO 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for harassment. The purpose of any deletion discussion or deletion review to is to determine whether an article should be kept or whether an article was wrongly delted, not to post personal slanders about the motives of other Wikipedians. I told you to not do this and removed the personal attacks, which you then reposted them. You have been blocked before, so maybe you are about to exhaust the community's patience.-- MONGO 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|MONGO himself banned me after falsely claiming I made personal attacks against him in a deletion review. The disputed edits were in fact simply me adding information about how the article was deleted, which is entirely in keeping with the purpose of a deletion review. MONGO also deleted very pertinent information I put in the deletion review. It should also be noted that MONGO's reason for blocking me includes a claim that I've been repeatedly blocked for harrassment, even though he is the only person who has even accused me of harrassment.|Then E-mail MONGO about this}}
No thanks, I'll take it to RfC. Stanfordandson 06:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by MONGO for the following reason (see our blocking policy): repeatedly, this editor has been blocked, and now once again, for harassment, I am blocking him again.
Stanfordandson ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have no clue why, but MONGO's blocked me indefinitely calling me a 'trolling account' even though I've only edited this page since the last time he blocked me for making personal attacks I didn't actually make.
Decline reason:
Contact Mongo--
KungfuAdam
22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Trolling seems to fit quite aptly. Not for the first time, either.
User:JzG
21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This should be reviewed again because JzG has a long running grudge against me, as evidenced by his repeated vandalism of my user page. Stanfordandson 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted MONGO, but he's not responding. Stanfordandson 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, it seems he has protected and blanked my user page because it's being used for 'ongoing attacks', even though it's only been used for one attack, and I wasn't the one who made it, and I couldn't have removed it because I was blocked while it was up. Stanfordandson 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Note to any administrator reviewing this block: I have brought this issue up on the unblock-en-l mailing list. Stanfordandson 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I am blocked indefinitely by MONGO, I am going to put potentially useful edits in this section of my talk page. Other people can look at them and, if they think they're decent, make them in my stead. Stanfordandson 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph in Laurentian University should say 'medical students' instead of 'med students', as the latter seems to be unencylopaedic in tone.
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's pretty clear that this account was created solely for trolling; a block until the AfD is over should suffice. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock|No trolling here.}}
By way of explaining my edit, it's not encyclopedic to caption that photo "Future GNAA members" unless Wikipedia is actually claiming that those people are future GNAA members. Since we don't even know who those people are, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that's not acceptable. The picture and the caption are there to illustrate the type of image that GNAA works with. Thus, we caption it, not the way GNAA captions it, but in a more detatched way, where the caption is not offered for the truth of the matter it asserts, but as an illustration. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've posted this on the relevant page itself, but I'm curious what you mean about "the informality of the title" when it comes to the song. BigHaz 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're serious, and not being a troll or anything, then I am most flattered and delighted to accept. Can you please activate your e-mail.-- Poetlister 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain this diff:
[1]
And this one in userspace:
[2]
Throw in comments like
[3], your commentary on 2 AfD
s:
WP:AFD/Du Bist and
Objective validity of astrology, and your previous block
[4], and it sure looks like you're trolling.
--
Samir
धर्म
04:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I made a good faith edit to Gay Nigger Association of America, specifically in removing an image that I did not believe improved the article. You reverted it as vandalism, which was inappropriate. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism to insure you understand what vandalism is and is not; in case you're not aware, it can be a bit insulting to good-faith contributors to treat their edits as vandalism. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions in this matter. -- SCZenz 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey dude, if you're going to pretend to be a new user, you have to not show so much familiarity with the policies and processes of Wikipedia. And maybe not edit battleground articles. Or nominate shitstirrers for adminship. Still, enjoy your time here, brief as it's likely to be. Grace Note 01:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
First, the contents and caption of the image indicated that it was more self-promotion by the GNAA; second, its copyright status is unclear at best, and it seems to have been photoshopped. - Mike Rosoft 07:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop adding GNAA images to non-GNAA articles. They are not informative because there is every reason to believe they are edited, staged, or otherwise misleading. I will not insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know this perfectly well, so if you continue such edits I will block you for deliberate disruption. -- SCZenz 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
unblock - Admin involved in a dispute with me blocked me, falsely claiming I was adding an image that was a 'GNAA image', despite the fact that it was relevant to the article I added it to and hardly an image that was exclusive to the GNAA.
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. <!-- Template:Test2-n (Second level warning) --> -- SCZenz 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
unblock|Administrator involved in an ongoing content dispute with me blocked me for things I've already been blocked for, and edits I made to Fairbank Memorial Park that were neither vandalism nor nonsense, as he falsely claims. It may be helpful to the potentially unblocking administrator to read through the discussion about this article I've had with the blocking administrator on my talk page. Also, this administrator's actions seem to violate Wikipedia's ban policy because the administrator blocked me because he was involved in a content dispute with me.
I disagree; the block looks fine. Your edits were nonsense, and you were adequately warned to stop adding it but you continued. 31 Hours is a standard block length and used by many administrators. -- pgk( talk) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the link in the Downsview (TTC) article, Stanfordanson! Daloonik 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stanfordandson, please stop trolling. If you don't want to contribute meaningfully to WP, please refrain from editing. Thank you, Crum375 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edit. Garion96 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed user page to remove "reason" for the blocks. Don't think it's fair to put down a purported reason for blocks and to duke it out with admins over the rationale for the blocks on a user page. Hope it's okay with you. -- Samir धर्म 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have copy edited some of MONGO's blatant and false errors in spelling and grammar. This is not a personal attack.
I have removed your blatant and false mischaracterization [6] from the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do not put this back in the review. Argue about the merits of the deletion, and not your opposition. This is your only warning on this issue.-- MONGO 08:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not personally attack me in that deletion review again.-- MONGO 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for harassment. The purpose of any deletion discussion or deletion review to is to determine whether an article should be kept or whether an article was wrongly delted, not to post personal slanders about the motives of other Wikipedians. I told you to not do this and removed the personal attacks, which you then reposted them. You have been blocked before, so maybe you are about to exhaust the community's patience.-- MONGO 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|MONGO himself banned me after falsely claiming I made personal attacks against him in a deletion review. The disputed edits were in fact simply me adding information about how the article was deleted, which is entirely in keeping with the purpose of a deletion review. MONGO also deleted very pertinent information I put in the deletion review. It should also be noted that MONGO's reason for blocking me includes a claim that I've been repeatedly blocked for harrassment, even though he is the only person who has even accused me of harrassment.|Then E-mail MONGO about this}}
No thanks, I'll take it to RfC. Stanfordandson 06:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by MONGO for the following reason (see our blocking policy): repeatedly, this editor has been blocked, and now once again, for harassment, I am blocking him again.
Stanfordandson ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have no clue why, but MONGO's blocked me indefinitely calling me a 'trolling account' even though I've only edited this page since the last time he blocked me for making personal attacks I didn't actually make.
Decline reason:
Contact Mongo--
KungfuAdam
22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Trolling seems to fit quite aptly. Not for the first time, either.
User:JzG
21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This should be reviewed again because JzG has a long running grudge against me, as evidenced by his repeated vandalism of my user page. Stanfordandson 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted MONGO, but he's not responding. Stanfordandson 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, it seems he has protected and blanked my user page because it's being used for 'ongoing attacks', even though it's only been used for one attack, and I wasn't the one who made it, and I couldn't have removed it because I was blocked while it was up. Stanfordandson 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Note to any administrator reviewing this block: I have brought this issue up on the unblock-en-l mailing list. Stanfordandson 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I am blocked indefinitely by MONGO, I am going to put potentially useful edits in this section of my talk page. Other people can look at them and, if they think they're decent, make them in my stead. Stanfordandson 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph in Laurentian University should say 'medical students' instead of 'med students', as the latter seems to be unencylopaedic in tone.