Hello, Winnerex, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Winnerex!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,
HostBot (
talk)
00:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Neil deGrasse Tyson. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators can
block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. —
C.Fred (
talk)
03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing.
A person with a PhD degree in something can't be called "self-proclaimed". Materialscientist ( talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Floquenbeam (
talk)
18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Winnerex ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Arthur Rubin has rolled back and reverted my edits and placed copy/pasted vandalism claims on my page which I disputed. He continued to harass me and I warned him I would contact an administrator if he continued. He didn't post any more, but then I get an accusatory and threatening comment on my talk page from administrator OhNoItsJamie which seems to be Arthur's own preemptive strike. I'm making this section in hopes of reporting administrator abuse by not only threatening and accusing me, but also encouraging user abuse by attacking me when I've done nothing wrong. Their issues can be seen on my talk page. Winnerex ( talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have looked through all of your edits; other than the ones on this page, all are either vandalisms or are otherwise non-contributory. Nor do I see any evidence of harassment or threat from administrators, although they have attempted to warn you about your behavior here, which in my opinion is disruptive, as you have been accused of.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:16, 4 March 2014 (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.
Winnerex ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Really, Anthony? I did no disruptive acts nor acts of vandalism. I have already stated that here on my talk page and presented myself. I was indeed actually harassed by Arthur Rubin who claimed I was making vandalism edits when I was not. He then threatened to report me to be blocked, at which point I threatened him I'd report him if he continued harassing me. This all took place after any recent edit of a public wiki article on my behalf, and I have since yet to make another edit to any article. Then the administrator OhNoItsJamie posts here on my page threatened to block me accusing me of being a sock-puppet duck, when in the very same WP:DUCK article he posts it clearly states that all are innocent until proven guilty, which is in explicit contrast to his unwarranted claim of WP:DUCK which even he is aware of when he immediately follows it up with "if anyone has any proof I'll go ahead and block." When I logged into my account this morning and read his post on my user page, I decided to report it on an administrative abuse talk article, at which point I was immediately blocked indefinitely before I even had a chance to reply while my report was removed from the page by another user. I copy and pasted it here and it was the sole content of my original unblock appeal. So to clarify, after a brief period of non-activity in editing any public articles while attempting to defuse the false claims on my talk page, I was met with an unprovoked threat and false accusation from an administrator, then upon reporting administrative abuse, I was made to suffer even more administrative abuse with an unspecified general "trolling (or I don't know)" indefinite block on my account. Winnerex ( talk) 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
All I had to do is review your edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson in order to find out that you indeed did vandalize that article, and massively violated our WP:BLP policies. To suggest that you did not make those edits would be false, as all edits are permanently linked to the account. You might not like or agree with an individual's views, but you have no right to attack, vandalize, or otherwise make inappropriate personal commentary D P 21:47, 4 March 2014 (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.
Winnerex ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Once again I come under fire of false accusations by a a moderator. I have not denied making changes to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's page. Not were the edits I made in bad taste or otherwise incorrect or inflammatory. They were explicitly constructive edits. Surely if you actually checked the edits I made to the article you'd realize this yourself. How is adding two words to an article that accurately and objectively apply to a living persons personality and achievements somehow constitute vandalism? BLP is repeatedly cited on the basis of nothing. To be perfectly clear, my edit was actually approved and saved for about an hour when the page was locked to further prevent any edit-warring with MY edit being the saved one. Winnerex ( talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clearly disruptive and clearly a time waste. Talk page access removed. only ( talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (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.
Noting here that I was about to do this myself but Only beat me to it. I'm not unblocking someone who classifies this as an "explicitly constructive edit". If you absolutely feel you must spend more of your time appealing a block that will not be overturned, your final route of appeal is the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Forget the Tyson article, you blanked Wikipedia:Fringe theories twice! Removing all of the content on an article is textbook vandalism, especially when it is done to make a point. The only way you can get unblocked at this point is if you accept responsibility for making nonconstructive edits and stop claiming abuse when the admins were just doing their job, trying to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
And (while with TPA revoked, it's rather moot at this point) I might add that nobody "approved" any content (while Neil DeGrasse Tyson does have Pending Changes, you were set to have edits autoaccepted), and the page has not been "locked" since 2013 - and even if it had been, m:The Wrong Version applies, making what was on the page when it was locked irrelvant to whether or not that content was right. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Winnerex, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Winnerex!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,
HostBot (
talk)
00:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Neil deGrasse Tyson. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators can
block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. —
C.Fred (
talk)
03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing.
A person with a PhD degree in something can't be called "self-proclaimed". Materialscientist ( talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Floquenbeam (
talk)
18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Winnerex ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Arthur Rubin has rolled back and reverted my edits and placed copy/pasted vandalism claims on my page which I disputed. He continued to harass me and I warned him I would contact an administrator if he continued. He didn't post any more, but then I get an accusatory and threatening comment on my talk page from administrator OhNoItsJamie which seems to be Arthur's own preemptive strike. I'm making this section in hopes of reporting administrator abuse by not only threatening and accusing me, but also encouraging user abuse by attacking me when I've done nothing wrong. Their issues can be seen on my talk page. Winnerex ( talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have looked through all of your edits; other than the ones on this page, all are either vandalisms or are otherwise non-contributory. Nor do I see any evidence of harassment or threat from administrators, although they have attempted to warn you about your behavior here, which in my opinion is disruptive, as you have been accused of.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:16, 4 March 2014 (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.
Winnerex ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Really, Anthony? I did no disruptive acts nor acts of vandalism. I have already stated that here on my talk page and presented myself. I was indeed actually harassed by Arthur Rubin who claimed I was making vandalism edits when I was not. He then threatened to report me to be blocked, at which point I threatened him I'd report him if he continued harassing me. This all took place after any recent edit of a public wiki article on my behalf, and I have since yet to make another edit to any article. Then the administrator OhNoItsJamie posts here on my page threatened to block me accusing me of being a sock-puppet duck, when in the very same WP:DUCK article he posts it clearly states that all are innocent until proven guilty, which is in explicit contrast to his unwarranted claim of WP:DUCK which even he is aware of when he immediately follows it up with "if anyone has any proof I'll go ahead and block." When I logged into my account this morning and read his post on my user page, I decided to report it on an administrative abuse talk article, at which point I was immediately blocked indefinitely before I even had a chance to reply while my report was removed from the page by another user. I copy and pasted it here and it was the sole content of my original unblock appeal. So to clarify, after a brief period of non-activity in editing any public articles while attempting to defuse the false claims on my talk page, I was met with an unprovoked threat and false accusation from an administrator, then upon reporting administrative abuse, I was made to suffer even more administrative abuse with an unspecified general "trolling (or I don't know)" indefinite block on my account. Winnerex ( talk) 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
All I had to do is review your edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson in order to find out that you indeed did vandalize that article, and massively violated our WP:BLP policies. To suggest that you did not make those edits would be false, as all edits are permanently linked to the account. You might not like or agree with an individual's views, but you have no right to attack, vandalize, or otherwise make inappropriate personal commentary D P 21:47, 4 March 2014 (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.
Winnerex ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Once again I come under fire of false accusations by a a moderator. I have not denied making changes to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's page. Not were the edits I made in bad taste or otherwise incorrect or inflammatory. They were explicitly constructive edits. Surely if you actually checked the edits I made to the article you'd realize this yourself. How is adding two words to an article that accurately and objectively apply to a living persons personality and achievements somehow constitute vandalism? BLP is repeatedly cited on the basis of nothing. To be perfectly clear, my edit was actually approved and saved for about an hour when the page was locked to further prevent any edit-warring with MY edit being the saved one. Winnerex ( talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clearly disruptive and clearly a time waste. Talk page access removed. only ( talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (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.
Noting here that I was about to do this myself but Only beat me to it. I'm not unblocking someone who classifies this as an "explicitly constructive edit". If you absolutely feel you must spend more of your time appealing a block that will not be overturned, your final route of appeal is the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Forget the Tyson article, you blanked Wikipedia:Fringe theories twice! Removing all of the content on an article is textbook vandalism, especially when it is done to make a point. The only way you can get unblocked at this point is if you accept responsibility for making nonconstructive edits and stop claiming abuse when the admins were just doing their job, trying to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
And (while with TPA revoked, it's rather moot at this point) I might add that nobody "approved" any content (while Neil DeGrasse Tyson does have Pending Changes, you were set to have edits autoaccepted), and the page has not been "locked" since 2013 - and even if it had been, m:The Wrong Version applies, making what was on the page when it was locked irrelvant to whether or not that content was right. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)