| Revision as of 09:54, 6 December 2009 editFragma08 (talk | contribs)885 edits →Hi← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:44, 7 December 2009 edit undoLittle Professor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,176 edits lulzNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :Thanks again. You said something I should have known long time ago and there appears to be clearcut favourism both among editor friends (just look at Mathsci) who completely sidetracked the subject citing "alleged" inappropriateness (?). The favourism has also spilled over into certain administrators. I was very surprised by some of the "explanation" given as for the not applying the rules equally, and the original admin had full knowledge of the violation happening by both parties. But consciously decided to let it slide, to put it mildly, despite it being an experience editor, who should know better. Furthermore a general warning was claimed off to be a warning of ANI when clearly the two are different, and administrator knows that. But at the end of the day there is nothing I can do about. I played by the rules and lost. And the holes in the "defense" are the size of craters. I have learned from this that rules do not apply for all, and it pays to have friends, because then you can break any rule and sabotage any article. This was not my impression of wikipedia. So it all comes back to what you said. You are right and I just should not have relied on honesty, fairness or principles, as none of that is relevant on wikipedia, clearly. Very discouraging and demoralizing indeed. Thanks for your kind words and for well making me realizing the that some battles are lost in advance. Corruption, coverups and deliberate lies, surprisingly enough, do that. I hope you have a nice day/weekend and you are welcome on my talkpage anyday now. You are right, life outside is more important. Regret to have rambled on on your page now! Again thanks. ] (]) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | :Thanks again. You said something I should have known long time ago and there appears to be clearcut favourism both among editor friends (just look at Mathsci) who completely sidetracked the subject citing "alleged" inappropriateness (?). The favourism has also spilled over into certain administrators. I was very surprised by some of the "explanation" given as for the not applying the rules equally, and the original admin had full knowledge of the violation happening by both parties. But consciously decided to let it slide, to put it mildly, despite it being an experience editor, who should know better. Furthermore a general warning was claimed off to be a warning of ANI when clearly the two are different, and administrator knows that. But at the end of the day there is nothing I can do about. I played by the rules and lost. And the holes in the "defense" are the size of craters. I have learned from this that rules do not apply for all, and it pays to have friends, because then you can break any rule and sabotage any article. This was not my impression of wikipedia. So it all comes back to what you said. You are right and I just should not have relied on honesty, fairness or principles, as none of that is relevant on wikipedia, clearly. Very discouraging and demoralizing indeed. Thanks for your kind words and for well making me realizing the that some battles are lost in advance. Corruption, coverups and deliberate lies, surprisingly enough, do that. I hope you have a nice day/weekend and you are welcome on my talkpage anyday now. You are right, life outside is more important. Regret to have rambled on on your page now! Again thanks. ] (]) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Your note == | |||
| We've been through this before. Don't leave template warning notes on my talk page. In fact, do not post on my talk page at all. Your "incorrect use of minor edit check box" note needs to be left for whomever it is that writes the rollback software because I do not use the minor edit checkbox otherwise. Please see ] where it clearly says "Rollback always signals itself as a "minor edit", hence the bold "m" at the beginning." Please stop leaving specious templates on talk pages, especially where it is entirely unwarranted. Again, take it up with the rollback author. ] (]) 00:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:44, 7 December 2009
Hi
Hi. :) Thanks for saying hi! RainbowOfLight 02:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Picture Added 2009 US Open
- Hello, I went and verified your image to be correct CC-BY, which is legal to use on wikipedia, and good job about getting the best resolution! I will and would appreciate it in the future if you would use the flickr upload bot at Wikimedia Commons, which can be done in Firefox browser. I think you might like this url Creative Commons, and go click on search! I think you would be good to find us some more pictures if you are up to it or not, I appreciate what you have already contributed! GOOD JOB LITTLE PROF!TW-RF (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request
{{unblock|My work IP (194.176.105.40) seems to be blocked even for logged in users. I work at a large organization so its inevitable that there will have been a lot of abuse from this ip. Could I get an exemption for my particular login? I've been a Wikipedian for many years, and not caused trouble (well, not that much anyway)}} Little Professor (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Please read the page Misplaced Pages:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Misplaced Pages via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator. Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires). I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Request handled by: -- Luk 14:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. |
Hi
Thanks for your kind words. I guess I expected wikipedia rules to be equal which is what they state when reading through and I have been reading, but reality is clearly different. Neutrality and civility are not appreciated traits clearly. That was a really unpleasent thing to realize, but now I know. Fragma08 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again. You said something I should have known long time ago and there appears to be clearcut favourism both among editor friends (just look at Mathsci) who completely sidetracked the subject citing "alleged" inappropriateness (?). The favourism has also spilled over into certain administrators. I was very surprised by some of the "explanation" given as for the not applying the rules equally, and the original admin had full knowledge of the violation happening by both parties. But consciously decided to let it slide, to put it mildly, despite it being an experience editor, who should know better. Furthermore a general warning was claimed off to be a warning of ANI when clearly the two are different, and administrator knows that. But at the end of the day there is nothing I can do about. I played by the rules and lost. And the holes in the "defense" are the size of craters. I have learned from this that rules do not apply for all, and it pays to have friends, because then you can break any rule and sabotage any article. This was not my impression of wikipedia. So it all comes back to what you said. You are right and I just should not have relied on honesty, fairness or principles, as none of that is relevant on wikipedia, clearly. Very discouraging and demoralizing indeed. Thanks for your kind words and for well making me realizing the that some battles are lost in advance. Corruption, coverups and deliberate lies, surprisingly enough, do that. I hope you have a nice day/weekend and you are welcome on my talkpage anyday now. You are right, life outside is more important. Regret to have rambled on on your page now! Again thanks. Fragma08 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)