Hi there - I noticed your username on WP:ANI relating to the discussion over the Futarani image. I reported it to Usernames for admin attention, as I was concerned it violates our username policy, but was told a block would not be appropriate. However, I still think your name is problematic. According to WP:USERNAME, 'unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.' The name 'Niabot' is misleading, as it suggests that you might be an automated account; on the English Wikipedia, all such accounts have names ending in Bot (e.g. User:ClueBot). Would you be willing to change your username, to avoid this potential for confusion? Thank you. Robofish ( talk) 13:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

We already talked about my name inside the german wikipedia, with the conclusion that it would be no problem. Since i created my account long ago, unknowing there was such an unspoken rule, that only bots should have this appendix. Even some other users inside commons or german wikipedia having such names, but all not intentional. Maybe somone should consider to add an filter that no one can register with "bot" as an appendix to his name. But i guess it isn't so much of an confusion, since everyone can see my edits an be sure, that im not a "stupid" bot. -- Niabot ( talk) 13:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Discussion moved to RFCN. T3h 1337 [[Special:Contributions/T3h 1337 b0y|b0y] 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, Niabot. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. kotra ( talk) 23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) - kotra ( talk) 23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you -- Niabot ( talk) 07:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You image is being nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ecchi if you want to see. Spongie555 ( talk) 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop with the prude accusations. They are off-base and bordering on personal attacks. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I was not aware that "prude" is a strong accusation in English language. The German equivalent is not seen as an accusation, but as a wording to rethink your opinion and to actually don't use polemic wording and come to the point (the essential critic). One aspect I'm still searching for in the arguments from Nick Levinson, since he changed the topic multiple times, if i was able to proof him wrong. -- Niabot ( talk) 07:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

There has been a huge debate over at the fan service article reguarding the images there and thought in the back of my head that if you were not busy, maybe you could lend a hand in drawing a new fan service image? A girl in high school or above would be preferred. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I can give it a try. Guess i will have to make her more plain to look not such childish, but well developed so it can be seen as Fan service. -- Niabot ( talk) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I dont think it has to be plain, I am seeing editors comparing the older look in File:Anime Girl.svg over in the discussion at Talk:fan service that image is great you made, just that one covers the article ecchi and not fan service. Again thank you for any proposal you can make. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Are you still interested in drawing a picture for the yaoi article? I found an interesting article which talks about how artists convey which character is seme and which is uke through drawings here. -- Malkinann ( talk) 20:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Could you please cut out the aggression and attacks? It creates a very unpleasant atmosphere and really discourages people from taking part in the nomination. You have been asked about this in the past, and already asked concerning this nomination. Again, if you are not comfortable for whatever reason, I advise you walk away. The nomination is able to go on without you. J Milburn ( talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not going away just because something isn't right and can't be changed in one day. You are the one making wrong claims, disrupting the nomination. -- Niabot ( talk) 11:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If you believe I am incorrect, that's fine, we can discuss the matter. That's how Wikipedia works; disagreement is not disruption. We do not have a policy stating that editors may not disagree, but we certainly do have policies concerning personal attacks, and personal attacks certainly do constitute disruption. J Milburn ( talk) 11:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

False claims without any valid source or reference are also disrupting. -- Niabot ( talk) 11:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Where have I made a false claim? J Milburn ( talk) 11:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That it would cause problems to display this image on the mainpage. Any proof for this claim? -- Niabot ( talk) 12:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Where have I made that claim? J Milburn ( talk) 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If you do not like the way FPCs are formatted, then it would probably be best to start a discussion about it on the talk page. Just deciding to format certain FPCs differently, and then edit warring with anyone who fixes them, is downright disruptive... J Milburn ( talk) 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Where is the rule about formating. Can't see one. This is to increase readability, since multiple comments are expected. -- Niabot ( talk) 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Another user has now reverted you. Please leave it as is for now and discuss it on the talk page if you feel it should be formatted differently. Edit warring is not acceptable; please be aware of the three revert rule. J Milburn ( talk) 12:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

sorry i meant featured picture candidate in my summary, also stop edit warring youve gone over 3rr now-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I not started to remove a clear line between comments and votes. All that was intended by me was to make it more accessible for voters. That J Milburn intends to make a big fuss out the voting can be seen here and here. Thats why i directly decided to split between votes and rather image unrelated comments. -- Niabot ( talk) 12:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

well discuss it calmly with him and the other users who reverted you, do not continue reverting people your already on the 3rr threshold-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Dicussing to block votings from happening is also an good method. Thanks for your help. -- Niabot ( talk) 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Niabot, ideally, FPC should be more than just a vote. The discussion is more important than the polling- take a read of our guideline on the subject. If you feel that it should be changed, I advise you bring up the subject on the talk page- unilaterally changing formatting as you see fit, and especially edit warring to keep it when people revert back to the default, is a bad idea. For more information, talk a read of this. J Milburn ( talk) 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

But this is no reason to not divide between both things clearly. It helps voters to get an better overview about the current state of the nomination. One of the reasons why we parted it inside DE:WP:KEB -- Niabot ( talk) 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Making it look like a poll is a bad idea, as it is not just a vote. Again, if you feel that it should be formatted in that way, raise the subject on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. J Milburn ( talk) 12:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Isn't it even better to divide between the "poll" and the actual comments? What is the reason against it. Your were the first to revert, so i want to hear from you, why this is bad. -- Niabot ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I reverted as it is not the usual formatting. You created this nomination because the other was too confused, and yet you feel that unilaterally changing the formatting will help stop that confusion? If the change in formatting was to be implemented, it would have to come after some discussion. That is why I reverted. You boldly changed, I reverted and now, if you still support the change, it is discussed. As I have said, I would be opposed to the change anyway, as it would reinforce the false belief that FPC is a vote, and that the voting is more important than the discussion. It is inconsistent not only with the way the other processes are formatted, but with the way this process works. J Milburn ( talk) 12:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Niabot, while I agree that it's frustrating that so many people have such strong (and opposite) opinions on your image, I think you are not helping yourself by being so outspoken/direct. I reccomend you calm down a bit, accept that other people have different opinions, and debate the issue itself. You have to work with the system, like it or not. I think you may be getting close to a suspension, if you don't take a deep breath and behave a bit more civilly. Might be worth keeping in mind that people from most English speaking countries communicate in a much less direct way than Germans... Aaadddaaammm ( talk) 12:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree here and was about to write something on it (I see Aaaddaaamm beat me to it), there are always going to be people out there with opinions that differ from yours, I know you put alot of effort into your drawings so please try not to take these comments to heart. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't be hit i they would say, that the image is shit and that they don't like it. But instead they are claiming that it is her right to oppose, because it would course an uprising if it would be shown at the mainpage. This is an issue that doesn't have anything todo with this particular picture itself. On the other hand i see that pictures of weapons, simulations of war scenes, done in a in propagandistic way by the US-Army itself are fine. That is the what i can't understand. We claim to gather knowledge regardless if it contains good or bad news. ( WP:NOTCENSORED) On the other hand we only show flowers, happy bunnies and chirping birds on the mainpage?! Isn't this strongly misleading? -- Niabot ( talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think that Avenue summed it up with this comment: " I don't think Main Page appearances should concern us; they're not our call" If the closing admin really does not feel that your image is main page worthy then it will not be promoted anyways. The mainpage issue should be off the table here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

But still it is the main reason to oppose. If written as that or not. Best seen at the last discussion (first nomination): "If you don't have more arguments, try to find something or you will get shot." (a roughly translated saying from Germany) So we came to the " dutch angle issue", which is quite common in art, not just in the often overused meaning of filmmakers. -- Niabot ( talk) 17:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Niabot, The Graphic Designer's Barnstar for your outstanding pictures. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

After looking to [1], I must give you this award. Your pictures are amazing and beautiful! It's a shame that your picture File:Anime Girl upright version.jpg possibly won't be promoted.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. But it's even more a shame, that it was removed today from the commons main page (It was picture of the day), together with an upsetting comment [2]. You can even read more about this censorship here and here. -- Niabot ( talk) 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh man... he replaced this beauty with a crappy man blowing a blowgun; how is this educational? And replacing without consensus.... And getting a barnstar for it....... I know what you feel... Censorship is very offensive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I didn't expect anything else coming out of the heads of WMF. The more they care about the project the worthier it gets. -- Niabot ( talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It looks like you had a few editors come to your defense there Niabot though, that one editor seemed to be way out of line. As for the emails you would be surprised on how big people's opinions are but when it comes down to policy here wikipedia is not censored. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

In my opinion this is just a joke. At least inside the German wikipedia we were able to address this issue. The result was a voting closed with 233:13 that no topic is to be excluded from the mainpage. Quite something we can be proud of. Commons stands between this both fronts and EN seams to be way of the roots. -- Niabot ( talk) 21:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply

just to test this new gimmick. ;)

Don-kun ( talk) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

You thrown a kitty on me. My hands are shaking in restraint to don't pet it and accidently destroying my display. ;-) -- Niabot ( talk) 21:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Let it drop. While the page is under discussion at MfD, the deletion notice has to remain at the top of the page. You're welcome to remove comments from your talk page, but edit warring and accusing everyone and their dog of vandalism, disruption and "false reasoning" is not going to get you anywhere but the noticeboards. J Milburn ( talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

There is no such rule. Now leave me alone. -- Niabot ( talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Moving {{ mfd}} to the top of a page is not vandalism, and calling it vandalism doesn't make it vandalism. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞  my edits 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

To make it clear: This is my user page. I dictate how it looks like. If you think that my page is not within the project rules. Then proof it, before changing it. -- Niabot ( talk) 19:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

That doesn't make it vandalism. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞  my edits 19:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Also, you are clearly violating the three-revert rule, and if you continue, you're very likely to get a block. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞  my edits 19:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't care much about this block. What i care about is your silly grouping behavior against a single user, it's opinion and it's rights. -- Niabot ( talk) 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

That is not an excuse for edit warring, or for calling something vandalism when it isn't. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞  my edits 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Niabot. J Milburn ( talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• I've just closed the mfd as snow keep; however, please note that your behaviour was disruptive. If you wish to argue in favour of keeping your userpage, you should do so on the mfd page, not edit war here. Above all, you should never be so cavalier about calling other users' good-faith edits vandalism. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • To add to Salvio's comments, I would urge you to review WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism before using the word vandalism again, as you appear to have misinterpreted it. Accusing editors of vandalizing when they are not is apt to result in a block. 28bytes ( talk) 20:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Would you say the same, if some group of users would come to your own pages and open deletion requests, without any discussion/questioning beforehand? -- Niabot ( talk) 20:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, we actually would.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Easy to say in that position. But I don't feel any grudge anymore. Just leave it as it is and I'm happy. -- Niabot ( talk) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
      • ( edit conflict) If an MfD was opened about my user page, I would certainly not call it vandalism. I think that would apply to most of the other editors involved in this, too. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞  my edits 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I would, since I am familiar with the vandalism policy. Now, that is not to say I wouldn't find such actions objectionable, and indeed even obnoxious, as I probably would. There are many types of unhelpful or unwanted edits one can make that do not qualify as vandalism; it is important not to use the term imprecisely. 28bytes ( talk) 20:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Sorry to bug you, but your username is in violation of the username policy — since you're not a bot, you're not supposed to have a username ending with "bot". Please request a change of username at Wikipedia:Changing username. Nyttend ( talk) 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

For your information: [3]. -- Niabot ( talk) 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Okay, sorry. FYI, I wasn't aware that this wasn't your home wiki. Nyttend ( talk) 21:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

In short: don't expect USA citizens to understand human rights. Nemo 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You didn't need to inform me about this issue. It is well known truth for ages. Volker Pispers gives a good conclusion inside this video (German, with English subtitles). -- Niabot ( talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

It's not about informing you, it's about sharing disappointment and linking you an article which needs work. ;-) ( QED.) Nemo 22:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Niabot. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 01:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

--  李博杰  | — Talk contribs email 01:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

FYI, regarding your comment, your 3rd link is dead, and the 2nd is from a site that blocks direct links to images. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Fixed the links as good as possible. Direct link protection is bad sometimes. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 09:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

We are looking for some images of Wikipe-tan to maybe be considered to be used as the "mascot" of the Christianity WikiProject. I was told that you might be the best person to make such images, if you saw fit to. We would welcome as many as possible, like maybe her at church of some sort, maybe dressed like a nun, wearing Virgin Mary blue, whatever. Please post any images you might have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2002/Wikipe-tan, and thank you in advance for any images you might generate. John Carter ( talk) 00:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

What kind off nun would you prefer? I mean she could be a strict, childish/naive, believing or even sexy nun. ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 06:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You know the subject best, so whatever you might like. Any or all of the above might work. For that matter, her with a halo and wings, or any other type of image would work just as well. The page linked to is right now a kind of "contest" page, with the possibility of a "vote" of sorts next month, but, considering that some people think Catholics (which most nuns are) are dubiously Christian, we might well decide to make more than one single image a mascot for more than one single branch of Christianity. I don't know how much time you might have, but I think we would welcome any image you might make. John Carter ( talk) 00:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to inform you about this discussion, just in case they try to invoke legal issues on-wiki. I thought you should know ahead of time. Silver seren ^C 21:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm well aware of that troll nest. But it is funny how this argument construction inventing machine works. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for disruptive editing and making what appears to be a personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Niabot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

No valid reason for a block given. Where is the attack? I only see a wrong interpretation. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

While we can debate who your comment was directed at, you made the comment with the intent to disrupt the project. Block upheld. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

---

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 consider this a personal attack – or, alternatively, trolling. Either way, a block was warranted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You just want too mute opposition. I call that misuse of admin rights. I request that another admin looks at this case as the same person that thinks that he/she was attacked and is involved itself in a heated discussion.

Das einzige Ziel ist es doch die Opposition zum Schweigen zu bringen. Ich nenne das Missbrauch von Adminrechten. Ich fordere das sich ein anderer Admin mit diesem Fall beschäftigt als der jenige der sich angegriffen fühlt und selbst in einer hitzigen Diskussion involviert ist. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

If it wasn't an insult or trolling, could you explain what you meant by it? Max Semenik ( talk) 23:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Look at the comment from User:Delicious carbuncle. Thats exactly what i expected. You say something. Some innocent words and someone will start to dig and dig until he can knit a rogue out of it to blame a user, a group of users or an entire project like Commons for things that they never intended to do. Thats what i wanted to illustrate in the light of this discussions: [4], [5], [6], ...

Maybe not the best way, but if it was throwing out a baited hook, than i must say, that i should go fishing with it after ordering a truck to transport the haul. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You really think it was made to disrupt the project? Sorry i can't follow your conclusion. Can you explain in detail why? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

This edit indicates you clearly knew you were being disruptive in making the cited comment. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No. I was saying that i had to expect such an reaction because it was done previously on Commons by the same user that responded to it at Jimbos talk page. In other words: He did it again. [7] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) It was a joke about Salvio saying he's maybe too old to understand. This block is just stupid. As for the reply comment, it seems to me he's saying that maybe he expected someone to come along, put little to no thought into what his comment meant, and then make a silly response to him like that was, if not an outright rude and abusive response like DC made there. Am I right or wrong, Niabot? Silver seren ^C 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Looks like I was more or less right. Silver seren ^C 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No, I see it as he knew it had been provocative before and made the comment here to disrupt this project by trying to provoke Salvio (or someone else). MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

It's nice that you see it that way, but it was very clearly a joke. If we're going to block for "joke disruption", then we might as well block Bugs for all of his jokes made on ANI. Silver seren ^C 00:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I never intended to provoke Salvio. I'm just astounded by his (over)reaction, but after DCs allegation i can partially understand why. On the other hand I'm not astounded by DCs reaction that he would dig something up that wasn't my intention and that it would be used against me. Damn it. PS: Is my signature a pair of breasts? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• This block is rather ridiculous. The comment is more or less innocuous and while, perhaps a minor insult, doesn't come even close to violating WP:CIVIL. Furthermore, since the comment was directed at Salvio, that means that he is WP:INVOLVED in this situation, very clearly so. If he felt so strongly about it, then he could have taken it to ANI, but blocking like this is completely out of process. Silver seren ^C 00:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• From his contributions, it seems MBisanz is just going to go off and do something else, ignoring this place. Make another unblock request, Niabot. Silver seren ^C 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'm a bit confused by this system. Will it not lead to problems if hypothetically speaking a group of admins would go against a single user? I mean the usual way would be a public central page for such problems, so that more people can look at such an unblock or block request. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 01:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I think that would be pretty much WP:ANI or WP:AN, one of which Salvio should have gone to in the first place, where consensus could have been made whether you should be blocked for the joke. But he didn't and has now violated blocking process and INVOLVED. Silver seren ^C 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Niabot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Admin is busy or does not have an interest to respond. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 10:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

---

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 didn't go anywhere. I didn't and don't see anything else that needs or requests action from me (I saw his signature comment, but that seemed more rhetorical; I always assumed his signature was cherries or a foreign script). MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• There is nothing blockable here. It was a joke that DC then blew out of proportion. Silver seren ^C 01:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Right, we apparently disagree on that point. I believe the block was a valid exercise by Salvio. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Actually, that one is even more clear cut, since the comment was directed at him, that means a response of blocking by him violates WP:INVOLVED, since it could just as easily be because he was emotionally angry at Niabot. That's why you get third party unrelated admins to do the block. So, already, the block is out of process and should be reversed. Silver seren ^C 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't blow anything out of proportion. Even having never heard the phrase before, it seemed obvious that this wasn't Niabot's typical wording, so I Googled it and posted links to the first web and image results. Do you think that Niabot was unaware of the connotation? Or was he "fishing"? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The connotation was obvious and is a widespread internet meme. The joke was also related to what was being discussed (i.e. child pornography) and was also in response to Salvio's "too old" comment. It was a funny joke, nothing more than that. What else are you getting out of it? Silver seren ^C 02:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

It was an unwise choice of joke, as I said. Why you think I have anything more to say about it, I don't know. It would probably be best if you just stick to facts and things that are actually said. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree that it can be seen as a bad joke for the situation, especially for the situation, really. But it's definitely not anything close to something that blocks should be handed out for. Silver seren ^C 05:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I have declined the unblock request above. This was done because a) the block appears valid, and b) the unblock request fails WP:GAB miserably. At this point, the editor has yet to recognize that the phrasing even might have been inappropriate.

At the risk of anyone crying that the blocking admin was "involved", I have taken ownership of this block, yet at the same time I have reduced the total block time to what would approximately be about 48 hours; down from the original week. This reduction is based primarily on it being a first block for NPA.

I will wholeheartedly suggest that no unblock be entertained from this point forward - the reduction was more than enough, considering the wikilaywering going on here. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm puzzled. I never intended to make a big fuzz or disrupt a discussion. It suddenly got a problem as DC put up an own interpretation of my words, which i can't agree with. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, it is vital to recognize that the words could have been taken differently. This is the written word: we cannot see body language, hear sarcasm, or even read your mind. Therefore, everything written has multiple possible interpretations. When something has such diametrically-opposed possible interpretations, it's better to not type it - ESPECIALLY based on overall context. You said X and meant Y, whereas many see X to mean Z. Recognize that X can also mean Z. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You can always bend words so far that you can make a problem out of them. Thats exactly what happend and what DC did on Commons. Should i consult a lawyer in future to be sure that my words aren't taken as the opposite to an WP:AGF interpretation? Is ABF (see second link in my signature) the current standard? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Niabot, why are you and Silver Seren trying to drag me into this? You made the comment - all I did was Google it. That's not my interpretation at all. If it makes any difference to you, I don't think you should have been blocked for the comment. I think the damage you did was to your reputation, not to Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Because you dug something up that wasn't my intention, making Salvio belief that it was my intention. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Not at all. I hadn't heard the phrase before, so I Googled it and posted links to the first search results. Those first results were not special (Silver Seren says it is a widely-known internet meme). I didn't make Salvio believe anything, and the only person who knows what you "intended" is you. Stop trying to blame me for the results of your ill-chosen comment. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

... and Salvio took the first interpretation that was found by you as the only and true interpretation to block me. A true example for WP:ABF. I have to applaud. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Did they? How do you know that? And if they did, in why am I responsible for their actions? I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. Incidentally, I just did the Google search again. I stopped looking after 6 pages, but the results seem to be pretty consistent. What did you mean by that comment, if not the obvious? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I must wonder why you googled for the words in the first place. Wasn't it a plain direct response to Salvios comment (too old)? I didn't use Google to write this five words, neither did i have any intention to reference the meme. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

As I have already said, it didn't seem like your words. Do you think that I knew what it meant all along and am pretending otherwise for some inexplicable reason? If I had been familiar with the phrase, my comment would have been pretty much the same. Perhaps now you can explain what you mean by your comment, if not the obvious? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

It could be that the only meme part he was actually quoting was "Do not want" and that too old was put in there because of Salvio's comment. I'm just guessing here though. Niabot, rather than beating around the bush, it would be better to directly explain. Silver seren ^C 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Question 1: I don't know. If i go after ABF i would have to think exactly that what you imply in your question. If i go after AGF then not.

Question 2: He wrote himself that he might be "too old". I looked at the picture in question and wondered what the problem could be. Since i could not follow any of his arguments, having an entirely different opinion, and knowing that it would be useless to comment on such "a fixed stance", i wanted to give him a short conclusion of what he wrote. The hope was that we could get away from such a fixed stance (something like "pornography is evil", "satire is evil", ...). Thanks to your comment that was entirely out of place it failed miserably. Why did you write it in the first place? To let people know about it? Why did you want them to know?

At this point i tend to assume ABF, since you wrote "... I am sure you meant it as a joke, but considering your defence of pedophiles on Commons and Meta, it was probably not very wise." You are right I defend pedophiles like any other human, but I won't defend pedophiles/humans for a crimes they do. If a drug addict consumes drugs then i don't have a problem with him, as long he isn't on the street sharing them with ulterior intents and harming other people. Thats the line i draw between a pedophile and a criminal at work. But i never intended it as a bad joke. I intended it as a question directed at Salvio, to reiterate its own argumentation. Even if i would have intended it as a joke, i would not have written to harm anyone or to disrupt the discussion. In fact such constant (and overly repeated) allegations are the problem for the discussions. How many hours did the majority at lobby bay spend to dig up all this worst case examples? How many hours did they spend to improve Commons or to participate in the project? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, your answer doesn't make sense to me. If you want me to understand it, you will have to rephrase it. I think I've already answered your first question, but the rest don't seem to be about this block at all. I'm only participating here because Silver Seren tried to blame me for your block, not because I want to play games with you. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Be careful, angler with hook and bait may cross

My questions to you are: Why did you post what you found on Google inside the discussion? What was your motivation to do so? What did you expect from it? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't blame you for the block, per se. But I do blame you for taking the comment out of context, which then led Salvio to make the block. Silver seren ^C 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Niabot, I posted what I found on Google so that other people would understand the context of your comment. That was my motivation and my expectation. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh well, you made your own interpretation of the words and presented it in the right light to the audience. You have done well, except that your used the wrong light. Thank you for that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Exactly. I went back in time to create literally thousands of Google hits which all said the same thing. My interpretation. I'm done here. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No. You used the Google results to show of an interpretation of the words that i had not in mind and therefore pushing in an interpretation that you saw fit for whatever reasons. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• In other news, while i'm busy at the moment, in a couple of hours, i'll be taking this to ANI for you, if you don't mind. Silver seren ^C 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mind at all. I would have done it myself, but with hands tied it's a bit difficult. Writing it as an IP would cause more harm than any good, etc. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Silver Seren, if you take this to ANI, don't make the mistake of mentioning me again. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Personally, I think it would be more of a mistake to submit it to ANI, but hey, Wikitutional Rights and all that jazz ... ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No worries. There's no need to involve you. I can't say whether Bwilkins and Salvio will hold to that though, since your response and then Niabot's response to you seems to be an essential part of their argument. Silver seren ^C 15:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Siver Seren: Maybe you want to inform Jimbo about my real intentions. Since i can't answer him. [8] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Too_old;_DO_NOT_WANT! – It's pretty obvious what Niabot was referencing. You don't see "too old" and "do not want" combined together by chance. Wikipedia:AGF_is_not_a_suicide_pact. It's a joke, but not a random joke and not the best joke. I would like to see Niabot unblocked. Bad humor isn't a proper reason for a block. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The meaning of it in regards to the block is rather unimportant, because neither interpretation is anywhere near something that would be blockable. Silver seren ^C 16:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just let me know if you want any comments copied over to the discussion. Give me the comment to copy and a diff of who you want it in response to. Silver seren ^C 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The adding of this link to the top was it an accident? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, this must have been a copy and paste accident that i didn't noticed. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 06:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean to take out your entire comment in the process :( User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

It either looks like a flat smiling face or a pair of breasts. Either way, I believe the signature needs to be able to identify you easily without having to check the diff page.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online

Facepalm Commons:User:Niabot/Signature -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 03:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh. Didn't see that.— cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Niabot,

You recently voted in the Arbitration Committee Elections. In accordance to the Request for comment on the election process, you must have made 150 edits in the main article space of Wikipedia before November 1st in order to be eligible to vote. According to a recent count, you only have 93 such edits.

If you believe we are in error, or there are other circumstances, such as a number of edits across multiple accounts, please let us know.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from adding your art to the Futanari article. It is unneeded, unpleasant, poorly drawn, has no benefit for the article, and makes the page less useful for those who do not wish to encounter explicit material. This is not an attempt at censorship. I would defend to the death your right to make this sort of art. I will not, however, support your continued attempts to add personal bias and self-made pornography to what is supposed to be a professional online encyclopedia. Leave the page alone in the future. Do not try to outlast me, as I am a painfully stubborn person who will continue to undo your additions and further edit the article for as long as I am physically capable of it. -NotHelpingMatters

Please refrain from removing sourced facts and to introduce vague wording, because it sounds better. Your changes are not correct and introduce an unnecessary bias. If the image should be used or not, was discussed in length in previous discussions. As long the only valid argument is, that someone could be offended, it will stay in the article until we have a better, free licensed replacement. No image plus your vague wording is the worst we could represent our readers. They would have not a single clue what it is about. -- Niabot ( talk) 08:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I been reverting NotHelpingMatters on the futanari page and reported him to the admins but your input on the trouble he has been causing would be appreciated. Thanks 86.164.67.30 ( talk) 00:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Your username resembles a bot, and your signature looks like boobs. Would you consider changing both?

Oh woops. Deja vu. I just remember asking you this a year ago. :p— cyberpower _Offline ^{Merry Christmas} 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The second link in my signature. ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 03:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

You are blocked for 31 hours for edit warring at Futanari. -- John Reaves 22:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dark Shines starts the edit war ("remove shity image"), calls me a "fuckwit" in the process, and goes away with it? [9] Well played, since i was expanding the article in the meantime. This will now have to wait for a another day. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Darkness Shines is also blocked. -- John Reaves 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Can you at least revert the article content that was deleted in the process. If i do so after the block, the first action would be to run to AN and accuse me for continuing the edit war. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

How is it so good? Also that futanari image, well done keeping it in the article. Sleepliving ( talk) 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Niabot,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 9, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-07-09. Thank you for all of your contributions! —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply