| Revision as of 14:42, 24 February 2006 editInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits →edit count adjustment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:11, 22 April 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,132,848 edits Renamed | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ... | |||
| '''You should have been blocked for a lot longer than a month, my friend.'''--''Jimbo Wales 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| == Seasons Greetings == | |||
| '''We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies.''' ---''] 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]] | |||
| {{User:MegamanZero/TopNav}} | |||
| <br clear=all/> | |||
| {{User:MegamanZero/Templates/TalkArchiveBar}} | |||
| {{User:MegamanZero/Talk Template}} | |||
| == Your account will be renamed == | |||
| = <sup>User posts: {{time}}</sup> = | |||
| <div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"> | |||
| == Userboxes don't equal blogs == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See ] for more information. | |||
| Describing your social or economic opinions or allowing others to acknowledge them isn’t bloging. This is, quite frankly, just being honest and exposing potential biases that we’d find out sooner or latter. Furthermore, Wikipedians have shown that political divide isn’t a factor. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Socialists, and all the likes have came together in opposing your rouge, unilateral platform, based mainly on some statements Jimbo made. Self references certainly do not harm Misplaced Pages and are disconnected from the actual encyclopedia. Wiki isn’t a bureaucracy and self descriptive templates problems don’t match the hype administrators have been putting on them. | |||
| Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called MegamanZero. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name MegamanZero~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can ]. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit ] to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed. | |||
| Furthermore, Wiki isn’t about a sole authority figure, even Jimbo, unilaterally directing things. Wiki is about a community and collaborative effort. A few Administrators shouldn’t have absolute power and Wiki must foster discussion to succeed. | |||
| Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in. | |||
| ] 10:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry for the inconvenience. | |||
| *Saying you're an democrat, an republican, etc. is perfectly fine. The only problem with userboxes is when the community confuses the interests of the encyclopedia with the personification and sharing of their own interests. Go figure. That's not goining to fly. When userbox mania crosses into the realm of imfalmmatory and offensive, not to mention pure unadaterrated absurditty, then they must go. Additionally, users have begun to justify the prolonged longtivity of these boxes by using the constraint of process. | |||
| Yours,<br />]<br />Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation | |||
| Concerning templates and self refernence, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. The point of all the tools and options provided to us is to expand the encyclopedia. Mea Culpa. The community, admistrators, collaborative effort, its all for the encyclopedia. From your staement, it seems to me you're placing the community before the value of the site (Of course, I could be mistaken, however, your statement sounds akin to the thought through which it was conveyed). Good faith, hardworking admins deleted these imflammatory boxes, ussually with a valid comment about an troll out to make trouble. I see no harm in deleting them. Please get back to concetrating on the encyclopedia. -]<sup>]</sup> 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div> 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- SUL finalisation notification --> | |||
| == |
== Renamed == | ||
| <div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr”> | |||
| I do not think it helpful to suggest he discuss things with you! It will only extend his ban. The talk pages of banned users are not a great place to initiate conversation. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This account has been renamed as part of ]. If you own this account you can ] for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: ]. -- ] (]) | |||
| ::Please see and take note. Per the rfa page, ] is blocked for disruption. While I agree upon the concensus his probation is to be enforced, the fact that his contributions go waste are not. I constructed his articles he prepared, and I merely wish an comprimise he be allowed to his talkpage as long as his actions represent an effort to improve the encyclopedia. -]<sup>]</sup> 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div> 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::ArbCom rulings are not subject to compromise, unless the Committee changes their ruling. There is no consensus on probation, since he is banned and committee rulings do not need consensus. I do not see anything in that link that I should take any notice of, since it is a banned user circumventing his ban. Enforcing an arbcom ruling is not, as you accuse below, thuggery. You should be careful of accusing people of such things, particularly the arbitrators. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- SUL post-rename notification --> | |||
| ::::I said as much in my comment to the talkspace. Why should we prevent users from making good-faith and productive edits..? That doesn't make sense. And, yes, I do indeed agree with the arbcom's criteria and rulings, I'm merely making an statement of discussion pertaining to the matter. Perhaps we should make an argument of allowing him to merely construct an sandbox. I'm not making an personal attack of thuggery, merely an citation to how we should give this some thought. I do apologize if I came off as so. I'm merely trying to come to an comprimise. Do not believe we have differning viewpoints on the matter, on the contaire, I'm in full agreement, just try to assume good faith. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The reason we do not allow ''any'' edits from banned users is that, if we did, we'd have to have long discussions over when to revert, when to extend bans, etc. That, in cases more serious than Dschor's, would be allowing the trolls to continue causing division even though they are banned. I don't know if you're familiar with the banned ], but this is more or less exactly the way he behaves — he fixes a semicolon in amongst trolling and someone, somewhere, tries to say that means he should be allowed to edit. The ArbCom is there to put a final end to all the discussion which usually has followed months of bad-blood and to hand out a binding ruling with remedy. There are no exceptions to bans, unless the Committee makes one; they didn't do that this time. That said, you may be able to persuade the Committee to replace their remedy with another one. This is not something that can be decided among admins and/or other editors, however, hence the fact that the talk page message to Dschor isn't the place to start. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay. I'm merely saying what I believe is good for encyclopedia. Allow edits for mainspace expansion and creation, and discussion regarding other areas of interest are to be ignored. You're completely correct, this situation had divulged into an probmatic area, and an ban was good. However, discussion regarding the striging of the good and bad is perfectly warrented. Thanks for your advice and consideration, and I'm gald to be on the same team. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == edit count adjustment == | |||
| I'd really rather not start adjusting user's edit counts. Other users have much larger "problems", in that they made several thousand edits under a different user (or IP) than they currently edit with. Also, edits (especially four edits) shouldn't really be that important... And per the Splash's comments on my talk page, Dschor is banned, not on probation. --] 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're correct. And, per the rfar, he is banned (I was under the introspect they were the same thing in his situation and its what I meant). If you feel its not okay to insert the edits, that's fine, but when an user is prevented from making contributions in light of an lack of disruptive behavior, there's a problem. I am sorry you feel this way, resorting to thuggery in light of good faith is not the way to construct an encyclopedia (I am not accusing anyone of this, however) -]<sup>]</sup> 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] (Again)== | |||
| I have just readded three proposed remedies to ], which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to | |||
| *remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering | |||
| *make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done. | |||
| As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:11, 22 April 2015
...
Seasons Greetings
Your account will be renamed
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called MegamanZero. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name MegamanZero~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Renamed
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)
16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)