ce |
ce |
||
Line 303: | Line 303: | ||
:::I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia<br /> |
:::I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia<br /> |
||
understand what you have been blocked for |
understand what you have been blocked for |
||
:::::I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.<br /> |
:::::I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will assume everyone is constructive and assume good faith of others. When others are nasty, I will be nice to them. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.<br /> |
||
and will make useful contributions instead. <br /> |
and will make useful contributions instead. <br /> |
||
::::I promise to do so.<br /> |
::::I promise to do so.<br /> |
Revision as of 04:33, 3 March 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, JB50000! I am Dougweller and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you shouldsign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect target
hi -- I see you're working on this one, and it seems to be going somewhere. Here a piece of advice on style: one thing to avoid in articles is phrases like "it is notable because...". Rather, let the words and facts you find speak for themselves. Other than that, keep going. Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- by the way, the note on the article is a PROD, not a deletion discussion link. If you think you have more in store, you can remove PRODs at any time, there are no repercussions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
"Barack Obama assassination threats" page
Hi JB50000, it's Hunter Kahn. Since our articles have sort of crossed paths, I think you and I got off on the wrong foot. I know you have good intentions with your edits, and I also know how frustrating it is to be a new Wikipedia user and to find so many of your edits suddenly being proposed for deletion. However, I think some of the ways you have gone about it are perhaps not the best way, like the constant AFDs against the Denver/Tennessee articles, and your attempts to move all the content of those articles into Barack Obama assassination scares. I think in the Hawaii plot AFD discussion, there is a leaning toward the type of page you have in mind. However, just moving the Denver/Tennessee stuff into that page and leaving it at that isn't the answer. Furthermore, all the AFD discussion about those two pages indicate there is a consensus to keep those articles, not merge them with a new one. So this is my suggestion: an entirely new page called "Barack Obama assassination threats", based mainly on the idea that you came up with at the Hawaii AFD. This would not only encompass the Denver, Tennessee and Hawaii plots, but all of the assassination threats that have been made against Obama. There are a lot of them, (I've added a few others, like the North Carolina and Miami threats from 2008) and I think although many of the threats are not notable separately, a lot of them are notable together and paint a broad portrait of the unprecedented amount of threats surrounding this president. (This page I've started only scratches the surface. There are several others, some of which you can read about here.) However, since it has already been established many times over that the Denver and Tennessee plots are large enough to encompass their own page, I've included only a brief synopsis of them on this page, with a link to their main articles. Take a look at my tentative page (which is in my sandbox right now). If you like it, we'll move it over and then we can get started on improving this page. I think this is a far better solution than trying to delete or merge together the Denver/Tennessee pages. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to compliment you for your work on 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. I think the way you responded to the deletion PROD there shows a tremendous amount of growth as a Wikipedian since you started out here. When it was proposed that it be deleted, it appears you didn't flip out or make disruptive complaints or try to delete 2009 Barack Obama visit to China in an attempt to make a point. Instead, you've continued to improve the article with additional information and citations from reliable, secondary sources. This is excellent. I've always felt the absolute best way to fight a deletion proposal is to just keep improving the article, and that's what you're doing with the Rudd article. It still needs work, but if you continue to move in the direction that you have been, I'll remove the PROD myself before 1/3/10, and would be more than willing to help you with further improvements if you want the help. Nicely done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, since the consensus at the Hawaii AFD seems to be growing in favor of this article, I've gone ahead and set up Barack Obama assassination threats. I've redirected the other Obama assassination scare pages to that new page, and indicated the history of it all in the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions or anything! — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter too much to me whether it's called "scares" or "threats". Since there is a threat at the heart of each of these cases (even the wackos), I think threats is OK, but I'm not really passionate about it either way. Maybe we should start a discussion at the talk page and see what the consensus is? As for the Rudd thing, I'd remove the PROD on the second-to-last day, not the last day, only because depending on when the time zone is, what you think is the last day might not really be the last day... — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, since the consensus at the Hawaii AFD seems to be growing in favor of this article, I've gone ahead and set up Barack Obama assassination threats. I've redirected the other Obama assassination scare pages to that new page, and indicated the history of it all in the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions or anything! — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!
Hey JB50000. I'm glad to see that another editor has removed the PROD from 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. The way a PROD works, you were free to remove it yourself and it wouldn't have been a problem, but the fact that other editors were impressed enough with your additions to cut it themselves bodes well for your article. However, I saw your comments here and here, which almost read as threats that if people try to delete 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan, you would try to delete International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and 2009 Barack Obama visit to China. I wanted to direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which states that just an article exists about one thing, doesn't mean it necessarily means an article should exist about something similar. (And vice versa; just because there isn't an article about A doesn't mean there can't be an article about B.) If you tried to delete those other articles, your attempts would fail because it would look like you're editing Wikipedia to make a point (which isn't allowed, as per WP:POINT), and it would only make you look bad when you try to defend the Rudd article from getting deleted. I feel like this is what you did with regard to the 2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii. Initially, the discussion there was in favor of keep, but rather than continue to improve the article, you tried to delete the Denver/Tennessee articles, and then all the support started moving from keep to delete. Please understand that I'm just trying to be helpful and point out Wikipedia policies to you. I'm impressed with your Rudd article, and if someone tries to delete it, I'll vote that it be kept. I'm just trying to make sure you're in keeping with Wikipedia policies so you can continue editing for a long time to come! — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note to anybody reading this besides Hunter Kahn: about the veiled threat, I explained it this way...
Hunter Kahn mistakenly thought I was threatening to delete the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China. No, I was alerting you of a similar style of article so that you could be convinced to keep both articles. Of course, such tactic could backfire and you could try to delete both of them. JB50000 (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you, I've raised the same argument myself before, but rules are rules. That's the policy as it is. Rather than try to make that argument, I'd just focus on establishing notability, which I think you've already done with the Rudd story thanks to all the secondary sources you've found for it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup
Ok, I'll see what I can do about adding you to the competition. Could you please choose a flag, and contact me on my talk page with your choice? It must be a real or historical location (country, city etc) it must not already be chosen, the flag must be under a free license and please don't choose anything offensive. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, you're in :) Don't forget to check out the rules and submissions formats, if you haven't already. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You've tried adding the same material to the Barack Obama article 3 times. Please review the various notices at the top of the discussion page, particularly concerning article probation. I will remove the material, which is disputed by multiple editors and seems to me entirely inappropriate for that article. Don't add it back unless there is consensus, which is very unlikely to happen given the material. Meanwhile feel free to discuss your proposal on the talk page. If you revert again your account may be temporarily blocked by an administrator to prevent instability to the article. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you are wrong. I added in ONCE. Then someone said to mention it in talk, which I did. I followed his instructions and added it back. That's it. Since Grass11 doesn't want it, I'll leave it at that. There is a whole lot of stability in the article, only a few edits today. Sorry you are mad. JB50000 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I see it. But that's not the way it works. Please review WP:BRD - disputed material stays out until and unless there's consensus. Given the importance of the article and the number of editors, you have to be careful with the "B" part of that. Please WP:AGF and don't try to make guesses as to other editors' emotions - that's inflammatory. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Forward Operating Base Chapman attack
Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Some WikiCup notes
Hi. Firstly, the main points table will be updated by a bot- you simply need to add your submissions to the submissions page. Secondly, though I appreciate the effort you've put in with your second competition, I don't think we're able to endorse it on the main WikiCup page at this time. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Rudd article
Hey JB50000. Sorry to have seen the outcome of the Rudd/Obama AFD. I hope you didn't take my votes there personally, but I'm sure you can probably understand some level of frustration some of the editors might have experienced. Let me make one more appeal to you to please, please refrain from these POINTy lumped-together AFDs in the future. I had previously told you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states a comparison between two articles is not a proper deletion argument. Then back when I said it appeared you were threatening to raise an AFD for the Obama article if your Rudd article came under fire, you assured me that wasn't the case. That, combined with your previous AFDs, made it difficult for me to assume good faith when you eventually did nominate it for deletion along with the Rudd page. I really think you want to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, and I think you have the potential to be a great editor. But you really need to stop pulling these stunts that look very much like WP:POINT violations. And as much as you might not agree with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it strictly prohibits many of the arguments you've been making. You can't simply ignore that. And now, even the administrator who closed the recent AFD has advised you against these lumped-together AFDs. Please don't get me wrong, I'm again trying to reach out to you and be diplomatic. I want to help you, but if keep pulling the same stunts over and over, it's going to be a real problem. — Hunter Kahn 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I guess you can bring it up at the talk page for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But I don't agree. I don't think it has anything to do with unfair treatment. You take each article on an individual basis. I think it would actually be less fair to say we should get rid of this page because we're getting rid of this other one, or to say we should keep this page because we kept that one. I think it's right that each page is judged on an individual basis. But I'm not saying you have to agree with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm just saying it's a guideline, and until it's changed, it's considered disruptive editing to not follow it. — Hunter Kahn 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nominations
Hi JB50000, I agree with you about the non-notability of the Henderson Fire Department, but I noticed per Vegaswikian's comment at the AfD that you didn't mention in the edit summary that you were nominating the article for deletion. It also doesn't look like you left a comment on his talk page to let him know, even though he was the article's creator. It's generally considered good form to use descriptive edit summaries in cases like that, and to notify major contributors to an article when you nominate it for deletion. If you use WP:TWINKLE or other automated tools they'll do this automatically, otherwise it's worth the effort to do it manually to maintain goodwill. Thanks-- Glenfarclas (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this:
"PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THREAD JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SAYING THINGS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH"
Please don't give me such BS. You can't read my mind and if you could you would know better. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the section you started in the first place is now going somewhere. You might wanna kick in when you have the time. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
AN/I thread
Hi, I just noticed your AN/I thread. FYI, it is both courteous and required to notify others when you are starting an AN/I thread involving the actions of others. Please consider this friendly, but seriously meant, advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You sent me an email, but I think you sent it to me by mistake. I think you meant it for an editor above. Have a nice day.Malke2010 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Obama
I agree with you completely and frankly, I don't even think its neutral, it doesn't state some peoples opinions and beliefs that Obama was not born in the US. Instead, they created a completely different article for it, while there is not a word about it on the Obama article. It seems that is was likely featured was so it would influence people that read Wikipedia to vote for Obama so that he could win the election. --12george1 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The biggest problem is not neutrality but just bad writing. They claim FA but there's lot of poorly written stuff and people defending the poorly written stuff. JB50000 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
FARs
Two things: first, I replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1. Second, regarding Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samuel Adams/archive1, please notify significant contributors and WikiProjects as per the FAR instructions. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Notification done. The Samuel Adams article can be brought to FA status without that much work, I believe. JB50000 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm not the person you should be asking to close the FAR; that would be User:YellowMonkey. Second, I agree that the FAR should be withdrawn, but not for the reason you have (which is not a valid reason at all to close an FAR). See my comment on the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've known Nishkid64 for 3.5 years and he's here for nerdy enjoyment reasons, so he won't get cheesed off it someone points out something that can be improved. Yes some important people don't care about anything except to build a powerbase for meaningless ego-pumping by NK isn't one of them YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm not the person you should be asking to close the FAR; that would be User:YellowMonkey. Second, I agree that the FAR should be withdrawn, but not for the reason you have (which is not a valid reason at all to close an FAR). See my comment on the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Userpage
I thought I'd let ya know you don't have to use your Userpage as a Personal sandbox, you can actually create a Sandbox in different userpage User:JB50000/Sandbox as an example. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3RR Warning
You're now at 3RR on Barack Obama, a page that's on article probation. Please stop trying to edit war in your change about him being a professor, and return to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please use the talk page to get consensus for your proposed edit before making it. --NeilN talk to me 07:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You should (if you haven't already) review Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Any more changes to the professor section may open you up to being sanctioned. --NeilN talk to me 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Neil, please do not accuse people and say "weasel words". The confusing use of the word "professor" is a weasel use, which is what you are doing. Let's think of solutions (alternate ways of saying things). JB50000 (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's no need to come up with an "alternate way" of obscuring the fact Obama was considered a professor at the University of Chicago. "He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years..." is not confusing just because you do not agree with that statement. --NeilN talk to me 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Borderline personal attacks
I won't template you for this, but, dude, this is borderline: "Censensus occurred in Nazi Germany..." + "Republican obstructionist"? Wtf, man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll tone it down. In fact, I'll sign off for now.
It is people like ThuranX who accuses me of anti-Obama bias when everything I say is neutral and helps the article. If you don't like my changes, the suggestions have merit for article improvement. Practically calling me a Bushie is an insult.
And, ok, people don't like using the word "Nazi". But there was widespread consensus in Dachau. Thousands of guards turned on the gas spigots. When people take turns reverting without considering that the suggestions are reasonable, that kind of consensus doesn't improve articles. JB50000 (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I hear you on the general idea, thus no template. But the 6 million dead wouldn't like being compared to a rather unimportant wikipedia-article, don't you think? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Samuel Zoll
The DYK project (nominate) 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Obama article
Okay... This is just stupid. I know you feel like you're in the right here, but using edit summaries in main space to continue your disagreement is just WP:POINTY. There is no harm in keeping Christianity as Obama's religion in the infobox until a consensus is reached on what terminology is to be used. This is especially true when you appear to be in the minority as to whether or not it needs to be changed. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, you shouldn't have to be reminded not to edit war on a page that's on article probation. And yes, even if you keep to one revert per day, continually reverting to your preferred version is edit warring (albeit doing so in slow motion). If you continue to do this, you may be blocked — consider this your warning. (By the way, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your argument, but you're going about this entirely the wrong way.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Obama Article Probation
As a courtesy, I've reported you here [1] for edit warring on the Obama article. I was hoping this wouldn't be necessary, but after your pointy null edit last night [2] followed by yet another revert today without bothering to gauge consensus [3], I thought it would be best to get an outside opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I introduced a totally new point today, that the source use was flawed. This new idea prompted the change. In contrast, another editor just changed it back with no discussion, no explanation. I am being the constructive editor. JB50000 (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So why wouldn't you wait for the discussion on the talk page? Dayewalker (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- For the record: coming up with a new argument to support a conclusion you've already drawn and edit warred about does not justify continuing the edit war. As Dayewalker says, it may justify further discussion on the article's talk page. But making the same edit with a slightly different justification is still making the same edit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for that comment. I will keep that in mind. Also bear in mind that others do even worse. They just revert it back without any discussion. However, I don't strive to copy those that lack manners as I strive to do some really good thought. So far, many of my suggestions are well thought out for article improvement. For example, trying to be more specific for his religion, discussing possible historic ideas (but not putting them into the article) such as discussing if the we can say that the recession is over or whether there's been a policy change with the new senator's election. All very constructive. JB50000 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- For the record: coming up with a new argument to support a conclusion you've already drawn and edit warred about does not justify continuing the edit war. As Dayewalker says, it may justify further discussion on the article's talk page. But making the same edit with a slightly different justification is still making the same edit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So why wouldn't you wait for the discussion on the talk page? Dayewalker (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The manner in which it is cited is a different question
What I mean is, is that, the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs looks like a reliable source, but whether it should be cited in support of a particular claim is a question to be determined by the editors on the talk page of the article in question. Dlabtot (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"Against Consensus" on the Obama Page
You're right: it's pretty well impossible now to alter the Obama page in any way. What is the point of "against consensus" if you source your edit to a site widely recognised as being reliable - it seems to be against the spirit of Wikipedia to get rid of something that is fairly uncontentious (as is taking out small things because they are less important).--Mister Zoo (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- What a lot of editors ignore is that the consensus of Wikipedia is for article improvement. So if one obstructs an improvement, they are going against community wide consensus. Article improvement is NOT adding negative things, but is also NOT adding unimportant positive things just because you can find a source. Consensus also is not a vote. Someone criticized me and said I was going against consensus and even pointed me to the WP:Consensus link. However, if you read it, they were violating it. I can explain more if you wish. JB50000 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify, the reason Guyzero removed my bit of trivia was because it interrupted a nicely flowing paragraph. As it turns out, there is a much more in-depth description in the Presidency of Barack Obama page, so I think I will leave it at that. I am very new to editing, and still a little unsure of the function of the talk pages, and what the etiquette is surrounding their use before editing a main article - apologies if I did something I shouldn't have. However, from the little I have seen of the behind-the-scenes operations of Wikipedia, there is not much hope of improving the Obama article - the only thing we can do to help is to screen out the defamatory vandalism that will inevitably pop up now and then on such an important page.--Mister Zoo (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
JB50000, I'm still confused as I see a great deal of discussion with you on the article talkpage. If you don't like the state of the article, please either fix it or use the dispute resolution process -- there are tools and noticeboards available to resolve whatever issue. The cool thing about wikipedia is that nothing is set in stone -- even the processes and policies can be edited. regards, --guyzero | talk 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Guyzero. You said "if you don't like the state of the article, please fix it". I have tried. That's why there is so much discussion.
- You also said "use the dispute resolution process". I have. I submitted something on the religion topic. I think the article should be more specific. I came up with the example that to say "Obama is the president of a North American country" is accurate but not specific enough for an encyclopedia. Somebody else came up with another way to say it that saying he is Christian is like saying someone is a human being, true but could improve the description.
- The problem is that some editors don't seem to be reasonable. Some are biased, either wanting positive or negative things without regard to the neutral way, which is what I seek, because it makes Wikipedia credible, not a joke. JB50000 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you are getting good participation in your religion RFC. That is exactly how the process should work, so great! Something to keep in mind is that folks who have been editing this article for a long time have had to spend a great deal of energy on some very silly recurring topics (birth certificate, muslim, etc etc.) In almost all of those cases, the person(s) advocating for the bad edits either start off or become needlessly confrontational. While the edits you are proposing are in good faith, and not silly, I've noticed that you are commenting about your perception of editor motives more and more (including in this section, and including on the talkpage of a brand new editor.) Editor commentary like this honestly casts a shadow over your content discussion, instantly making it far less likely to be successful. Like the content dispute resolution processes, there are also user behavior resolution processes. If you feel so strongly that folks are "unreasonable", then exercise those processes rather than continue the random commentary on people. I realize that it can be frustrating when your edits aren't accepted, but keep in mind that there is really no urgency and that if you find consensus against your edits, it would perhaps be less frustrating to accept and understand the consensus - take it on faith that folks aren't Obama-cheerleaders but are perhaps NPOV/RS/V cheerleaders just like you, and then wait for more/better/clearer sources and try again in a few months. Anyway, hope this helps. regards, --guyzero | talk 17:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that some editors don't seem to be reasonable. Some are biased, either wanting positive or negative things without regard to the neutral way, which is what I seek, because it makes Wikipedia credible, not a joke. JB50000 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Lawrence Romo
Hello! Your submission of Lawrence Romo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned something concerning you in a complaint filed against User:Tarc
In my complaint at WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents page, I mentioned this diff [4] in which Tarc addressed you. (I said nothing negative and implied nothing negative about you.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Following
Following you around? I was simply looking to see if you were posting your 'religion' argument in any other venues, since you seemed to be forum shopping the issue. Perhaps you should read the article(Baldwin) before inserting redundant material, or making changes. In any case, I altered the template for that gay porno actor you had confused with Alec Baldwin(heck, even if you type in 'Alex Baldwin' into Google it directs you to the Alec Baldwin Wiki page), to a more apt wording. I do agree that some people may not now the name is Alec and may try to find 'Alex'. DD2K (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Re: Religion---That's actually a healthy attitude. Consensus is a bitch, because even if you are sure you are right, you are wrong if it's against consensus. That's something I learned the hard way. In any case, the whole Christian or Protestant or something in between just get's into too much WP:OR. I could see if it improved the article, to ignore the rules, but it doesn't, imo. DD2K (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Re [5] - there's about five different sources in the end of paragraph ref. Did you check all of them before adding the tag? --NeilN talk to me 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, one source said 10 lawyers, not 12. It's not a big deal but I think the number is wrong. I don't care that much. Just like Obama's birth year. If someone insisted on 1962, I'd give up after 1 or 2 tries of correcting it unless the person was nasty, then I'd try harder. But if someone is civil, I sometimes let them have their own way. JB50000 (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
New Article
I appreciate the offer, but there are a few issues right now that prevent me from devoting much time to any article. Not to mention the fact that I don't really write articles for Wikipedia(one small article in 4 years), I am also on vacation until the 24th. In any case, thanks again for the offer. DD2K (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good luck. As for Obama's religion, it's hard to know what's in another person's heart. But, if one reads the two novels that Obama wrote, the reason he chose TUCC to worship in, had a lot to do with the 'good works' of the church. He had also seriously considered joining the local Catholic church and go through Confirmation because of the good works and charity the Catholic church strives to accomplish. In any case, good luck to you. DD2K (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit Warring on the Obama page again
This edit summary [6] is completely incorrect, the article probation does not give you the right to edit war (3 edits in less than an hour and a half) to uphold what you feel is consensus. Please stop, and take it to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The other people are not discussing changes so I have to defend the article to it's original state, even if I disagree. Why didn't you warn the other editors who are making changes without any discussion? JB50000 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't warn anyone else because they didn't make three edits in an hour to a probation article. I'm warning you because you're edit warring, which you've been warned about before. You don't have to "defend" anything, especially against mutliple other editors. You should really limit yourself to 1RR, especially since the article is under probation. Dayewalker (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Lawrence Romo
Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Guam
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Guam a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Guam, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know that cut and paste was illegal. I thought that the history was not deleted so no big deal. But I was mistaken. JB50000 (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Bo (dog) mention in Barack Obama article
Hi JB, and thanks for the congratulations. I'd prefer not to get too entangled with this, so I'll simply leave my thoughts here for you to chew on, feel free to reply on my talk page if necessary. Firstly, your creation of the section at AN/I is inappropriate, admins (myself included) have no special status on content disputes, and the section looks like a complete POINT violation to me; there is no need to create an AN/I thread to try and get it closed to prove that it shouldn't have be opened in the first place. Your interactions with other users, at AN/I and other places, seems to be poor. When a number of editors object to something you've done, accusing them all of being a tag team isn't helpful, and assumes bad faith. Claiming that the tag team is preventing improvements to the articles (i.e. reverting your edits) is a slight at the other users. Remember, they are trying to improve the article too, just because your views are at odds with each other, doesn't mean one of you are trying to obstruct or disrupt. I suggest you stop accusing others of these things, since it's being to look like you're attacking them. It appears clear that there is a large amount of opposition to removing the Bo mention from the article, and you are the only one (except a blocked user) who seems to think it should be removed. You should not therefore claim there is a consensus to remove, or that it is trivia, since it appears clear that the dog is not considered trivial. I suggest you accept that the community appears to disagree with you in this, and stop attempting to remove this information. While it's good that you have decided to stay away from the article for some time, you seem to be doing so in a manner which basically says you'll come back to it, again, I'd suggest that you leave it, and accept that consensus is against you in this case. Best - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Replying on your page. JB50000 (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and thank you for your reply.
The user didn't appear to be threatening to take it to AN/I, rather they mentioned in passing that another user had mentioned that it might be worth taking it to AN/I to get more eyes. It's not a race to get to AN/I first, the admins there aren't going to do whatever the user who first posts says. And if you hadn't wanted to have this case at AN/I, I'm sure all you'd have to have said was that you didn't.
It's true that tag teaming does happen, but it's probably rarer than you think. You shouldn't assume that the users disagreeing with you are a tag team, unless you have proof that they are. In this case it just looks like a number of editors who have a different opinion to you. Thank you for understanding.
Yes, there was one other (blocked) user and yourself who supported removing it, and no opposition, and then you did remove it. That's commendable. However, now that there are more users opposing the removal than did support it, consensus is no longer for it to be removed, so you shouldn't have kept edit warring to remove it. Users don't have to comment on the talk page of the article for their opinions to be valid. In this other discussion about the dog being trivial, you seemed to be the only one who thought so. Although I can understand if your problem is that you think the arguments that other users are using are weak.
Once again, remember all of you are trying to improve the article, so don't claim other users are objecting to article improvements, they simply feel differently about how to improve the article.
If you want to proceed, I'd suggest that you create a new section on the talk page, to discuss if the dog should be included, and ask for input from all the involved users, including the opposition. That way you can have a proper discussion. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)- While I can see how opening another discussion could easily be seen as forum shopping, I think that it's the best way to get everybody to discuss this in one place, if that's what you want. Yes, it would have been better if these users had discussed on the talk page, I agree with you there! :).
Hmm, you seem to have addressed this by simply removing all the content which is just slightly incorrect per that reference. The way I personally would've dealt with that, would have been to simply say that the dog was specifically a present to the daughters (in fact, I'd encourage you to do that now). After all, the daughters are part of the family. And if the dog had been given to Obama and Michelle, you wouldn't bat an eyelid at it being called a family dog. I'd see this as striving for the best .
No problem, I hope I'm providing a bit of food for thought :). Don't quite get your last comment, if you mean do I want to expand this discussion to include other editors, please do (although I would again suggest the Obama talk page as the place, if you want comments from everyone involved). - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)- Thank you, I'm glad to help :).
Personally I don't think there is as massive a problem as you may think. I do agree that it would have been better for the users to comment on the talk page, rather than just reverting. But I think the way to deal with this is to actually leave these users messages on their talk pages, explicitly asking them to comment on the talk page, and then I suspect they would do so. You'd have to wait for comments before taking further action on the mainspace page, which can be quite difficult! The way to approach sensitive matters such as negative BLP content, is to make sure that you have an open mind, and are willing to discuss (unfortunately this may be over and over again, so patience is important). If the other users aren't being, then do not continue to edit war, a conversation in edit summaries isn't the right way to settle something, I think you understand this by the way you are keen to discuss :). But you have to be the user who stops edit warring and starts discussing, even if you're right.
I would be happy to comment on the talk page, but as I said before, my opinion isn't worth any more then any one else's. You need to make sure you listen to what everybody says, even - especially, in fact - those who disagree with you. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)- This issue has been discussed many times over on the talk page (including one active section which I see you're a participant of), and I think it's clear how the community feels about this. So there's no need to bring it up again imo. Frankly, I personally agree that if the University says that he was a constitutional law professor, then the article should reflect this. If a couple of blogs disagree, I don't think that should over rule the University. And the first read source seems to be supporting that he is a professor. Saying that because the White House doesn't explicitly say he is a professor doesn't mean that they are saying that he is not one. I don't see a problem with saying he is a "constitutional law professor" in the article.
Thanks for your politeness :), - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- This issue has been discussed many times over on the talk page (including one active section which I see you're a participant of), and I think it's clear how the community feels about this. So there's no need to bring it up again imo. Frankly, I personally agree that if the University says that he was a constitutional law professor, then the article should reflect this. If a couple of blogs disagree, I don't think that should over rule the University. And the first read source seems to be supporting that he is a professor. Saying that because the White House doesn't explicitly say he is a professor doesn't mean that they are saying that he is not one. I don't see a problem with saying he is a "constitutional law professor" in the article.
- Thank you, I'm glad to help :).
- While I can see how opening another discussion could easily be seen as forum shopping, I think that it's the best way to get everybody to discuss this in one place, if that's what you want. Yes, it would have been better if these users had discussed on the talk page, I agree with you there! :).
- You're welcome, and thank you for your reply.
The community thinks that the reliable source is the University. It's not a matter of the community making their own decision on the matter, it's about them judging which sources are the reliable ones. What a few people on a comment thread think doesn't really come into it imo. The "internet community" isn't considered a reliable source.
I understand that you see us as "taking the side of Obama's campaign", but I see it as us taking the side of the reliable source over the internet community (which, as I mentioned, is not a reliable source). Unless you have a reliable source saying that the University is just saying that to get in Obama's good books, then I have to disagree with you. Yes,it's possible that the University is doing this. But we can't just remove everything cited in Wikipedia on the off-chance that the source may have exterior motives for saying that. As the article is at the moment I don't see it as a POV, or taking sides.
I don't think it's necessary to put that in the article. Personally I think we should call him whatever kind of professor the University does.
You need to learn to assume good faith while working with other editors. They aren't trying to yell that he's a professor, they are trying to gather as much information as possible, which is our goal. When you disagree with some information, don't claim that the people who put it in are trying to ruin the encyclopaedia, they simply have differing views on how to improve it to yours. Yes, there are some pretty rude editors, but we do work on the principal that anyone can edit. So we simply have to put up with that. Any really uncivil users can be blocked.
Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Basically I see that as you saying that we should always assume sources (even reliable ones) are lying to us. That's not how I feel we work, we should trust the source unless there is ample evidence otherwise, which I personally don't see in this case. I can understand, and encourage, you erring on the side of caution, especially when dealing with a BLP. But adding information to an article, and citing a reliable source for it, is not, in my opinion, a point of view. While I agree your neutral side is nicely crafted, I don't see any reason to take out that he was a professor, because there is no reliable source which contradicts the University (that I've seen). So including that he is a professor is not pro-Obama, it's simply following our policies.
Just because the White House neglects to mention that he is a professor does not mean they are being careful, or purposely avoiding the subject. It's not our job to look for these kinds of things. Again, just because the White House doesn't say Obama is something, doesn't mean he definitely isn't.
No disrespect is meant here, but please JB, as I said before, you need to start assuming good faith with the people you work with at this article. Repeatedly accusing them of rudeness and purposely adding POVs to the article doesn't help situations. While it may seem justified, it's incredibly important to follow AGF. Especially since assumptions of bad faith at Barack Obama can more easily lead to a block than at other pages WP:GS/BO. You said you wanted to improve the way changes are made at this article. I suggest you start by changing your attitude to the other editors there, and giving them (or at least their work) some more respect. If you do so, I think you will be surprised at how much you will receive in return. Please consider this carefully.
I can't really answer the first question, since it's not really for me to choose which sources are reliable or not. Basically it would depend on if they've been proven to have been in the past. If you want a proper answer I'd suggest you visit WP:RSN. You may also find Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources an interesting read.
Personally I feel that complete neutrality is achieved in an article by only using content cited to reliable sources. Removing any original research, and anything cited to a dubious or marginally reliable source. The source of NPOVs are editors adding their own research to articles, or the research of other unreliable sources. I also think it's important to make sure that by the way the article is written it is clear Wikipedia doesn't endorse any particular actions etc.. And that we generally make the article as boring as possible .
Thank you very much for staying away from the article while discussing this, you've stayed away far longer then I would expect, sorry for my late reply today. Most of your edits there seem productive and polite. I don't know what you were thinking when you posted this. And I would strongly advise against such comments in the future. But otherwise I don't see a problem.
Thanks for your messages, as always, I'm glad to help :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
what was that?
was that you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Just being silly. I'll remove it. I have no idea what I put there. JB50000 (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
where are they?
(your marbles) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Heads-up
It has been my habit to refrain from presenting a request for administrative action against the rogues' gallery of belligerent, smeary and delinquent editors we've had at that page, but none has made so ridiculously cavalier and tangential a series of provocations as you, on top of the usual pointy and perseverant disruption and refusal to hear. I wanted to do you the courtesy of giving you a heads-up: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement. Abrazame (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Consider this a warning. Both your edits at the Obama talkpage and your ill-advised disruption of an ANI thread were not appropriate. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just for clarification, regarding the Obama talkpage I am warning you both against edits with inappropriate comments on living people, and edits that clearly are not intended to improve the article (since, as you already admitted in numerous places, your edit was not related to article development and not constructive). See Wikipedia is not a forum. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by disruption, assumption of bad faith and stealth canvassing/campaigning. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.
As made clear by both Rjanag (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation your actions are not currently in line with policy. Your email to me basically requested that I join you in a tag team, when you first came to me talk page this is what you were complaining about other editors about. I think you have the wrong idea of how we work, you seem to think that you should be challenging the other editors, and be "strong" against them. You should instead work with them. General sanctions makes it clear that you should assume good faith and remain civil, but you are constantly rude to the about the other editors at Barack Obama and claim they act in bad faith. Your continued posting in Chinese after being told to stop is also disruptive, apologising about posting in Chinese in Chinese isn't funny, and shows you aren't taking concerns seriously.
I hope that you understand the reasons behind this block, and when you return you change your behaviour, and the way you interact with others. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry.
I am also sorry that you completely misunderstood my email. I never asked Kingpin13 to tag team. Here is what I wrote:
Hi,
Those two who are complaining about me to the Obama sanctions board are too much. However, I am nice. How about a secret deal where you close the complaints against me as saying these things don't help in your moderating with JB50000? In return, I will limit editing to Obama pages to a maximum of (deleted) days per month for the next 2 months (March 3 to May 3). With such informal and secret restriction, I'll make each post very thoughtful. However, if there are formal restrictions, I'll fight because that this not fair, particularly against bullies. See, I am a weakling and not a fighter.
JB50000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Tag teaming is a very serious offense. Because I did not ask administrator, Kingpin13, to tag team (see above), I should be unblocked. However, I request reduction of the block to 24 more additional hours. Failure to unblock gives my enemies power and makes them have no remorse for being so rude. If unblocked, I will exercise extreme restraint. I am sorry about replying in Chinese but this is all that I wrote: Sorry. 对不起 Es tut mir leid انا اسف AGF and do not block because of mistaken allegations of tag teaming and that sorry. Thank you.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I do not think the multilingual sorry is disruptive but I will not do it again. I will also assume good faith in everyone - I will take this to the extreme from now on. I did not ask to tag team so I am completely innocent in this regard but I also promise never to start. Sorry.
A final request: Please be kind and not nasty when acting on the unblock request. A kind response will set the tone for a happy and productive reintroduction to WP for me, something that I pledge to continue what you start. JB50000 (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- A final note to you: We don't do "secret deals" and you shouldn't be viewing other users as your "enemies." Wikipedia is supposed to be about transparency and working together, not backroom dealing and a battleground mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
JB50000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for Beeblebrox's informative and non-nasty reply.
I address the following elements mentioned by Beeblebrox:
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia,
- I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia
- I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia
understand what you have been blocked for
- I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will assume everyone is constructive and assume good faith of others. When others are nasty, I will be nice to them. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.
- I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will assume everyone is constructive and assume good faith of others. When others are nasty, I will be nice to them. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.
and will make useful contributions instead.
- I promise to do so.
- I promise to do so.
I: also not ask for a full unblock, only a reduction of the block to 24 hours. This good faith gesture will be repaid by lots of good editing! Sorry and thank you.
- I will not ask again for unblock so please don't be nasty when you reply. Beeblebrox was nice enough to have a civil answer.
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<br />Thank you for Beeblebrox's informative and non-nasty reply. <br /> I address the following elements mentioned by Beeblebrox:<br /> the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <br /> :::I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia<br /> understand what you have been blocked for :::::I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will assume everyone is constructive and assume good faith of others. When others are nasty, I will be nice to them. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.<br /> and will make useful contributions instead. <br /> ::::I promise to do so.<br /> I: also not ask for a full unblock, only a reduction of the block to 24 hours. This good faith gesture will be repaid by lots of good editing! Sorry and thank you. :::I will not ask again for unblock so please don't be nasty when you reply. Beeblebrox was nice enough to have a civil answer. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=<br />Thank you for Beeblebrox's informative and non-nasty reply. <br /> I address the following elements mentioned by Beeblebrox:<br /> the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <br /> :::I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia<br /> understand what you have been blocked for :::::I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will assume everyone is constructive and assume good faith of others. When others are nasty, I will be nice to them. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.<br /> and will make useful contributions instead. <br /> ::::I promise to do so.<br /> I: also not ask for a full unblock, only a reduction of the block to 24 hours. This good faith gesture will be repaid by lots of good editing! Sorry and thank you. :::I will not ask again for unblock so please don't be nasty when you reply. Beeblebrox was nice enough to have a civil answer. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=<br />Thank you for Beeblebrox's informative and non-nasty reply. <br /> I address the following elements mentioned by Beeblebrox:<br /> the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <br /> :::I do not vandalize and will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia<br /> understand what you have been blocked for :::::I fully understand what I have been blocked for. Even though there was a misunderstanding, I did not ask for tag teaming but only presented my secret plan to edit much less and much more thoughtfully. I will assume everyone is constructive and assume good faith of others. When others are nasty, I will be nice to them. I will not edit any Chinese, Arabic, or German.<br /> and will make useful contributions instead. <br /> ::::I promise to do so.<br /> I: also not ask for a full unblock, only a reduction of the block to 24 hours. This good faith gesture will be repaid by lots of good editing! Sorry and thank you. :::I will not ask again for unblock so please don't be nasty when you reply. Beeblebrox was nice enough to have a civil answer. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}