|
Tjholme, While contributions such as this are constructive and valuable, the allegations and insinuations against other editors in this or this edit are not. You are encouraged to rephrase those two statements to comment on content rather than contributors and refrain from similar comments in the future. You are however absolutely welcome to offer more of the first kind. MLauba ( Talk) 08:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's usual practice to indent replies on talk pages ( as described here) to make it clearer what you're responding to. This is done by prefixing your post with one more colon than whoever you're talking to has used. pablo 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. First of all, thanks for this contribution to the ANI discussion. However, since it does not appear to take on board what other users have said in response, I have decided to offer a reply here. When a user comes to Wikipedia and, in the very first sentence of their very first contribution to this project, states without caveats that he is " a supporter of Amanda Knox's innocence", one wonders whether it is a case of a player putting all their cards on the table in a defiant and intimidating manner. I also find it interesting that you appear sure of PhanuelB's inner thought processes in stating "When PhanuelB says 'The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so' it's obvious he's not suggesting that Guede be demonized or slandered, just that the quoted source be quoted accurately, which it isn't in it's current form." PhanuelB did not link to any diffs or external URLs in the statement referred to, which means that I am at a loss as to how you, a different user, seem to have a precise knowledge of what he left unsaid. As to the rest of your comment (allegations of a "bloody river", for example), the refuting arguments are further up the page, and it is tiresome to repeat these time and time again. Please provide some substantiation when offering counter-arguments so that they carry more weight. Thank you, and regards, Super Mario Man 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (t)
(c)
18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)|unblock|2=reason=This is a cheap and petty way to get rid of people that dont agree with the British consensus, and comes off as a temper tantrum from petulant children angry that the tide of public opinion is obviously turning in AK's favor. In my own defence, it was freaking Hanukkah (followed by Christmas.. yes I celebrate both.. so sue me.) and I've been busy.. I didnt have much to add to the conversation but I caught up on reading the debates as time permitted.. I only spoke up in defence of people Ive seen blocked with little cause in the past.. Thats been an ongoing discussion.. I'm neither sockpuppet nor meatpuppet anymore than you coordinated bunch of British Knox haters are.. I have one identity only and a unique IP.. If you have some PROOF that I sock or meat puppet.. If you have anything more than ill will and mean spiritedness then lets see it.. Otherwise unblock me!. I'll edit again when and if I get ready to. Not on your schedule. 67.168.126.17 ( talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) That was me, tjholme, by the way Tjholme ( talk) 01:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Tjholme ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above Tjholme (talk) 12:10 am, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but blaming others and insulting them will not get your block lifted. Your unblock request must discuss your behavior and demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked. TN X Man 15:35, 11 January 2011 (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.
{{unblock|1=I would like to restate my request to unblock my account. In my previous comments I was angry at being unexpectedly blocked and lost my cool. I've had time to compose myself and reflect upon the situation. Please allow me to restate my case. In January 2010 I was accused of being a meatpuppet along with a number of other editors. (Please see user: Pablo_X/spa) This took me by surpise as I have only one account, one user ID and am the only person logging in from my IP address. No one has ever instructed me to support their position. I support those that seem reasonable to me and oppose others. I cannot discuss my behavior as to my knowledge I broke none of the critical rules. I didnt threaten or attack others, I didnt vandalize, I didnt use vulgarities. to my knowledge, my sin was to openly disagree with the small group of admins that were controlling all edits, as well as supporting other editors that had IMO been blocked without good cause. I did in my frustration refer to the admins in question as a bunch of British Knox-Haters.. I admit that was less than civil and crossed a line. I apologize. I dont not wish or intend to engage in the kind of bitter and petty sniping that characterized the MoMK article in the Fall of 2010. I havent bothered to appeal my block since January as under the rule of the admins that have dominated I considered the article slanted and a lost cause. However, since Jimbo Wales has intervened to restore some balance, I see new hope for a Fair and Balanced article. I respectfully ask that you unblock both my account ( user: tjholme ) and my IP (67.168.126.17 ) }} [[User:Tjholme|Tjholme]] ([[User talk:Tjholme#top|talk]]) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with Wikid77. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason= I request that my block be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please allow me to request that both my user name, tjholme, and my IP range be unblocked. I do now understand that the comment I made under my IP Address was wrong and amounted to sockpuppetry. I am guilty and I apologize. I will not let it happen again. At the time the offense occurred I didn't realize that I was evading.. I was simply trying to get my previous INDEF, which had been in effect over 3 months, lifted. It was an error of ignorance on my part, not malice. I'm not sure what I did in December to get INDEF'd but I can appreciate how my break from commenting during the holidays followed by my sudden return might be misconstrued as some kind of offsite coordination. I should have calmly explained myself rather than getting angry. I will strive to be more circumspect in my actions going forward and to be more coorperative with the other editers and admins in general. [[User:Tjholme|Tjholme]] ([[User talk:Tjholme#top|talk]]) 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)}}
I believe that this user should be unblocked. Turningpointe ( talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Tjholme ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Is anyone even following up on these unblock requests anymore? Will some unbiased admin, and by unbiased I mean someone not aligned or in league with either side of the Amanda Knox debate, please take a minute to read the discussions above and review my unblock request on it's actual merits rather than simply popping in to say "I agree" with the openly anti-Knox crusader user: SuperMarioMan ? (Note: that was not intended as a slur on SMM. It is a documented fact that he/she is a posting member at the anti-Knox hate site PMF and/or TJMK) A brief review will show that I was blocked without cause during a mass blocking in Dec 2010. An act that Jimbo Wales himself has decried as improper. Thank you in advance for your time. Tjholme ( talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I have unblocked both your account and your IP. It appears that you have been blocked for reasons you were not aware of before. Besides, for an offense like this, three months is long enough. Make sure that you completely understand our WP:SOCK policy before editing, or you may be reblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this post. PhanuelB is not only blocked from editing but has also had access to his talk page revoked, a step only taken around here for extreme situations. He can e-mail the Arbitration Committee, that is I believe his last avenue of appeal at the moment. Tarc ( talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Proxying edits for blocked users is not allowed. Please do not do it again. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Tjholme, While contributions such as this are constructive and valuable, the allegations and insinuations against other editors in this or this edit are not. You are encouraged to rephrase those two statements to comment on content rather than contributors and refrain from similar comments in the future. You are however absolutely welcome to offer more of the first kind. MLauba ( Talk) 08:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's usual practice to indent replies on talk pages ( as described here) to make it clearer what you're responding to. This is done by prefixing your post with one more colon than whoever you're talking to has used. pablo 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. First of all, thanks for this contribution to the ANI discussion. However, since it does not appear to take on board what other users have said in response, I have decided to offer a reply here. When a user comes to Wikipedia and, in the very first sentence of their very first contribution to this project, states without caveats that he is " a supporter of Amanda Knox's innocence", one wonders whether it is a case of a player putting all their cards on the table in a defiant and intimidating manner. I also find it interesting that you appear sure of PhanuelB's inner thought processes in stating "When PhanuelB says 'The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so' it's obvious he's not suggesting that Guede be demonized or slandered, just that the quoted source be quoted accurately, which it isn't in it's current form." PhanuelB did not link to any diffs or external URLs in the statement referred to, which means that I am at a loss as to how you, a different user, seem to have a precise knowledge of what he left unsaid. As to the rest of your comment (allegations of a "bloody river", for example), the refuting arguments are further up the page, and it is tiresome to repeat these time and time again. Please provide some substantiation when offering counter-arguments so that they carry more weight. Thank you, and regards, Super Mario Man 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (t)
(c)
18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)|unblock|2=reason=This is a cheap and petty way to get rid of people that dont agree with the British consensus, and comes off as a temper tantrum from petulant children angry that the tide of public opinion is obviously turning in AK's favor. In my own defence, it was freaking Hanukkah (followed by Christmas.. yes I celebrate both.. so sue me.) and I've been busy.. I didnt have much to add to the conversation but I caught up on reading the debates as time permitted.. I only spoke up in defence of people Ive seen blocked with little cause in the past.. Thats been an ongoing discussion.. I'm neither sockpuppet nor meatpuppet anymore than you coordinated bunch of British Knox haters are.. I have one identity only and a unique IP.. If you have some PROOF that I sock or meat puppet.. If you have anything more than ill will and mean spiritedness then lets see it.. Otherwise unblock me!. I'll edit again when and if I get ready to. Not on your schedule. 67.168.126.17 ( talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) That was me, tjholme, by the way Tjholme ( talk) 01:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Tjholme ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above Tjholme (talk) 12:10 am, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but blaming others and insulting them will not get your block lifted. Your unblock request must discuss your behavior and demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked. TN X Man 15:35, 11 January 2011 (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.
{{unblock|1=I would like to restate my request to unblock my account. In my previous comments I was angry at being unexpectedly blocked and lost my cool. I've had time to compose myself and reflect upon the situation. Please allow me to restate my case. In January 2010 I was accused of being a meatpuppet along with a number of other editors. (Please see user: Pablo_X/spa) This took me by surpise as I have only one account, one user ID and am the only person logging in from my IP address. No one has ever instructed me to support their position. I support those that seem reasonable to me and oppose others. I cannot discuss my behavior as to my knowledge I broke none of the critical rules. I didnt threaten or attack others, I didnt vandalize, I didnt use vulgarities. to my knowledge, my sin was to openly disagree with the small group of admins that were controlling all edits, as well as supporting other editors that had IMO been blocked without good cause. I did in my frustration refer to the admins in question as a bunch of British Knox-Haters.. I admit that was less than civil and crossed a line. I apologize. I dont not wish or intend to engage in the kind of bitter and petty sniping that characterized the MoMK article in the Fall of 2010. I havent bothered to appeal my block since January as under the rule of the admins that have dominated I considered the article slanted and a lost cause. However, since Jimbo Wales has intervened to restore some balance, I see new hope for a Fair and Balanced article. I respectfully ask that you unblock both my account ( user: tjholme ) and my IP (67.168.126.17 ) }} [[User:Tjholme|Tjholme]] ([[User talk:Tjholme#top|talk]]) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with Wikid77. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason= I request that my block be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please allow me to request that both my user name, tjholme, and my IP range be unblocked. I do now understand that the comment I made under my IP Address was wrong and amounted to sockpuppetry. I am guilty and I apologize. I will not let it happen again. At the time the offense occurred I didn't realize that I was evading.. I was simply trying to get my previous INDEF, which had been in effect over 3 months, lifted. It was an error of ignorance on my part, not malice. I'm not sure what I did in December to get INDEF'd but I can appreciate how my break from commenting during the holidays followed by my sudden return might be misconstrued as some kind of offsite coordination. I should have calmly explained myself rather than getting angry. I will strive to be more circumspect in my actions going forward and to be more coorperative with the other editers and admins in general. [[User:Tjholme|Tjholme]] ([[User talk:Tjholme#top|talk]]) 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)}}
I believe that this user should be unblocked. Turningpointe ( talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Tjholme ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Is anyone even following up on these unblock requests anymore? Will some unbiased admin, and by unbiased I mean someone not aligned or in league with either side of the Amanda Knox debate, please take a minute to read the discussions above and review my unblock request on it's actual merits rather than simply popping in to say "I agree" with the openly anti-Knox crusader user: SuperMarioMan ? (Note: that was not intended as a slur on SMM. It is a documented fact that he/she is a posting member at the anti-Knox hate site PMF and/or TJMK) A brief review will show that I was blocked without cause during a mass blocking in Dec 2010. An act that Jimbo Wales himself has decried as improper. Thank you in advance for your time. Tjholme ( talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I have unblocked both your account and your IP. It appears that you have been blocked for reasons you were not aware of before. Besides, for an offense like this, three months is long enough. Make sure that you completely understand our WP:SOCK policy before editing, or you may be reblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this post. PhanuelB is not only blocked from editing but has also had access to his talk page revoked, a step only taken around here for extreme situations. He can e-mail the Arbitration Committee, that is I believe his last avenue of appeal at the moment. Tarc ( talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Proxying edits for blocked users is not allowed. Please do not do it again. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)