| Revision as of 18:26, 23 December 2011 editFDR (talk | contribs)1,193 edits →December 2011← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:41, 23 June 2015 edit undoFDR (talk | contribs)1,193 edits Since I withdrew that request, and it therefore was not declined, this falls in the part of my talk page I can blank. | ||
| (199 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=This is my original account. I will not troll, make jokes, etc, anymore. I will only make constructive edits. | decline = You were using sockpuppet accounts as recently as 4 days ago...I odn't quite see you understanding the issues involved here. ] (]) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- ] | ] 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason= The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.|decline=Under the circumstances, I think we could take a ] approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. ] (]) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==Please sign on talk pages== | |||
| Please sign and date your comments on talk pages. You can do this just by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, it will be automatically turned into your user name and a timestamp. I've added a pseudo-sig to the entries you've already made, but it's tedious and laborious to do. -- ] | ] 15:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Answer == | |||
| I apologize, in the future I will sign my account name and give the date as well. | |||
| ] | ] August 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Retraction == | |||
| Instead of crossing out the "I suggust you may want to look at this user's contributions" comment why not delete the comment altogether." | |||
| ] | ] 11:45 PM August 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Because it is one thing to retract a remark, and another entirely to hide the fact that I ever said it. -- ] | ] 05:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Don't remove Jmabel's comment. Given that he has assked you not to already it strikes me as unacceptable behaviour. Please don't repeat, ] 05:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I had not read my messages so I did not know that he had asked me not to delete it, I am deeply sorry for having done this. It won't happen again. I am kind of new to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ] | ] 12:32 AM, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Delete == | |||
| Hi FDR, I'm trying to make sense of your request. Even if all participants agree to delete the section in question, it may be easily found/recovered through history function. I'm not an admin, maybe they possess some magic powers to do more. I suggest, let's just leave it alone and move on. It will be archived and quickly forgotten. Newcomers tend to make mistakes, let's assume good faith on all sides and cooperatively contribute to make WP better. There are so many good things to do. Cheers. ]←]] 22:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I was editing the Edward Kennedy article and for a brief time I accidentally deleted the infobox, I apologize for this. | |||
| ] May 20 2:14 AM 2006 | |||
| I am having trouble getting to the ] page. Is there something wrong with it. | |||
| ] May 24, 12:19 PM 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Could someone tell me why I have been unable to get to the Canada page. | |||
| ] May 24, 12:27 PM 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Never mind. | |||
| ] 1:45 PM May 24, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Would anyone like to continue the debate about on the Elizabeth II talk page about whether Canada is a kingdom on my talk page. | |||
| ] 3:22 PM May 26, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. As a member of the Misplaced Pages community, I would like to remind you of ] policy for editors. In the meantime, please ''']''' and continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank you! <!-- Template:NPOV0 --> <br clear="both"> | |||
| Most of us know David Icke is nuts, but we can't say it in the encyclopedia. If you have a reliable source saying he is mentally ill, we can quote it. It would probably go better in ] rather than ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You might have a look at ] when you get a chance. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I apologize for using a stupid means to make a point in the Texe Marrs article. I will change it back to in between and truly NPOV. The Texe Marrs article is the only article I did that with. | |||
| ] | ] 6:09 PM 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I appreciate your civility. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to point out that there are other articles I changed in a slightly similiar fashion to. But in those I only changed my own contributions or removed them and it was because I actually thought my contributions were either not NPOV or poorly written. But in the Texe Marrs article I was actually doing it to make a stupid and inapropriate point against the NPOV policy but in the other articles I actually changed my contributions because they actually had problems not to make a stupid point. So that is not what I was doing with the other articles. | |||
| ] | ] 21:02 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] disambiguation page == | |||
| I really am trying to help here, but you seem absolutely determined to apply your own style, rather than that dictated by the ]. I'll run through each in turn (text in bold is a direct quotation from that page): | |||
| *'''"Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."''' | |||
| ::''"A thief, interloper, or intruder."'' — The word "cowan" does not appear in the ] page. Also, you don't need to write <nowiki>]</nowiki> as you have done. | |||
| ::''"A person apprenticed to bricklaying but not licenced to the trade of masonry."'' — Again, the world "cowan" does not appear on the ] page. | |||
| *'''"Try to link to the disambiguated page with the first word in the line, so:''' | |||
| **'''], in music theory, a major chord built on the lowered second scale degree''' | |||
| **'''not: In music theory, a ] is a major chord built on the lowered second scale degree"''' | |||
| ::That's why I've been writing ''"In ], a person who is not a freemason."'' Not because I like that version better, but because it puts the wikilink as close to the start of the bullet point as possible, and it avoids piping. | |||
| ''--] 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| == Additions to ] == | |||
| Hi FDR... just so you know, I have removed the explanations of Cowan and "so mote it be" that you added to the ] article. I have no problem with explaining these terms, I just think you put them in the wrong place. The opening paragraphs are really designed to give an overview of what Freemasonry is, and explaining specific terms and usages does not fit in that overview. I'm not sure what section such explanations should go in, but the opening is not it. Feel free to add them back if you can figure out a better location in the article. ] 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please cite sources== | |||
| Hello, and ] to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as ], but we regretfully cannot accept ]. Please find and add a reliable ] to your recent edit so we can ] your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! ] 05:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have now sourced my statement there and restored it but in altered form to make the content more apropriate and moderate. | |||
| ] ] 1:13, October 4, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help with Nominating for Deletion== | |||
| Could someone help me, I want to nominate the ] article for deletion, but I don't know how to. Could someone tell me how to. | |||
| ] ] 6:50:30 October 8, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A step-by-step guide is available at ], as well as detailed explanations of the criteria for deletions. I mention this because I'd oppose deletion myself - she's not the only woman whose ''affaire celebré'' has defined her notability (see ], ], ], etc etc). And poor quality writing or a lack of sources are not criteria for deletion by themselves, although I'd agree that the page needs improving. ''--] 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| *I am going to remove the entry of ] from the ] page, because it is a red link. This is just a formatting/cleanup decision on my part; please feel free to follow the steps to nominate the article for deletion as indicated above if you still believe the article should be deleted. --] 15:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Somebody vandalized my account and contributed an inapropriate sentence under my name. What can I do about this. ] ] 5:00 October 20, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :First thing - change your password. Is it a trivial munge of your username, or easily guessable ? Someone could have hacked it from afar. ]…] 08:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I changed my password. I still don't know who vandalized my account. The fake contribution from the person who vandalized my account was in the ] article. It said "when he died in 1902 Rhodes was considered one of the sexiest men in the world." That article is one I have contributed a great deal to, but I was NOT the person who wrote that and I deleted that inapropriate contribution. But I still have not figured out who vandalized my account. ] ] 32:46 October 21, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Freemasonry == | |||
| I've removed the section you added to Freemasonry, there is a section on origin theories in the ] article to which you could add Lomas' theories. Given that the scholarship in his books is so poor the conclusions have no place in isolation on the main article.] 08:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :While I tend to agree with ALR on the 1717 origin I am interested in the way in which some Masonic authors are influencing popular culture with their theories of pre-1717 origins of Freemasonry. The most obvious example are the various Baigent and Leigh works that made up the biomass on which the Da Vinci code could flourish. You seem to have followed the subject far more than me so perhaps you'd have some ideas on this? ] 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}This is the '''only warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits.<br/> If you ] Misplaced Pages again{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Misplaced Pages|, as you did to ]}}, you '''will''' be ] from editing. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im --> ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 11:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}Please refrain from vandalizing pages as you did with . ] 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==fdr v. The Real World== | |||
| You're contributions to the Cecil Rhodes article that were deleted, were to say the least, bizaree, why did you write that nonsense. | |||
| ] | ] 9:37 PM 30 September 2006 | |||
| :Dude, ]; also, 'bizaree' is not a word, and your entire post seems to be a ] which should, by all that is good and grammatic, end with a ] (?). Oh, and you're ----->your. People in glass houses, yada yada yada... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == May 2008 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Facebook|, such as the one you made to ],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] <font size="-1">(])</font> 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "Relevant" == | |||
| These edits are nonsensical and, if you wish, unsourced, so please stop making them. --] (]) 13:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2010 == | |||
| ] This is the '''only warning''' you will receive regarding your ]. | |||
| If you ] Misplaced Pages again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im --> ] (]) 03:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == February 2011 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for Your recent edits, gong back to at last October 2010, seem to indicate that you are either no longer in control of this account, or yourself. Accordingly, for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, it seems to be contra-indicated that this account should be allowed to edit further in the absence of an extremely cogent explanation for such edits and a commitment to future constructive edits. That's up to you, if indeed, you still have control of this account.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ]] 23:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| == March 2011 == | |||
| Can I still edit my talk page?--] (]) 11:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==December 2011 == | |||
| {{Unblock on hold | 1=Rodhullandemu | 2=Because I understand my previous edits were unacceptable and that I need to get a hold on myself. Specifically the ones such as "George Bush is more relevant" etc. and in the past I made some good edits such as creating the Catherine Radziwill article and improving the Rhodes one ] (]) 8:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) | 3=] (]) 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| :You were blocked all the way back in February of this year. Why did it take you this long to contest the block? Are you responsible for the edit history in the months leading up to your block, such as and ? If not, how did the security breach occur and what have you done to prevent it occurring again? If so, what is your explanation and why should we not expect you to engage in such vandalism in the future? ] (]) 23:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was responsible for them because I thought it was funny I realize now that it isn't and that I must get a hold on myself you should believe because I know that if I do it again I will be blocked again without any hope of the block being lifted. The reason I took so long is I didn't have time to use the site anyway and I thought I should cool down first. Also I noticed it says "the reviewer is waiting for comment by the blocking administrator. I contacted him myself but he probably won't respond because he's been blocked himself. I'm not trying to make it about him or blame him I'm just saying since he's been blocked and you wait on him to make up your mind he might not respond to you. --] (]) 01:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also I'm actually now working as https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SeoirseIII so the block affects my ip address and I'm now working constructively as you can see from my new account. So can it just be canceled? It would help me be able to work with my new account because the ip block affects my new account. --] (]) 06:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| http://simple.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/SeoirseIII | |||
| http://ga.wikipedia.org/Speisialta:Contributions/SeoirseIII | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/SeoirseIII | |||
| Here are my new accounts' contributions. --] (]) 06:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Of course the block is affecting your "new" account; when YOU are blocked, it means that YOU AS A PERSON are blocked. Creating a new account in those circumstances is not permitted (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">''' ] '''</span>]) 13:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok now I understand I should not have used the SeoirseIII account. I'll wait until this ban is lifted to use an account, except on the separate wikipedias such as simple wikipedia because I don't believe the ban applies there. --] (]) 17:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You can have only one account. Please see ]. Since it seems you have been contributing productively I will unblock this account, but you will have to make a statement explicity choosing one account and agreeing to edit only from that account. ] (]) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree to only edit from this account called FDR from now on. --] (]) 18:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:41, 23 June 2015
FDR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is my original account. I will not troll, make jokes, etc, anymore. I will only make constructive edits.
Decline reason:
You were using sockpuppet accounts as recently as 4 days ago...I odn't quite see you understanding the issues involved here. only (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (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.
FDR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason I was banned is because Flyer22 said my editing was sloppy, careless, unsourced, and erratic. I got angry at her and started harassing her. I agree to not harass other editors in the future. Another reason was Malke2010 and Flyer22 both said that I edit warred. I agree not to do that in the future. Another reason was that I used sock puppets. I agree not to do that in the future. I also agree to only make good edits. Even though I used a sock recently when I appealed my block from the sock I made clear I would not use more than one account without permission if the ban was lifted. I also only made good edits from that sock, and I think that should be taken into consideration. That I have matured as an editor. The sock was ECayce187. I agree to stop using more than one account.
Decline reason:
Under the circumstances, I think we could take a standard offer approach in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (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.