| Revision as of 13:08, 2 July 2015 view sourceSbaio (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers122,571 edits →Warning: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:01, 12 March 2023 view source Legobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,136 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <center> (1x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (126 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== July 2015 == | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for disruptive editing, comprising giving out harassing and meritless "vandalism" warnings and then edit warring to keep them on the page, at ] and ]. I note the warning above has had as little effect as the other warnings you've received for this behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ] | ] 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason= Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick , I warned them for this. The Banner , I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. ] ] 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)|decline=Overall, I agree with the blocking admin's description of events leading up to your block. In future, if an editor leaves you a message saying that you are giving out too many warnings, don't respond by issuing another warning. ] (]) 18:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi Handpolk, just wanted to mention I'm glad to see the earnest work you're doing in the areas you're editing in now, although do consider that the advice you've been getting from the experienced editors there may be good to take. Regarding the ''Invitation'' section above, you should feel free to remove the section from your User Talk if you'd like. <code>]]</code> 14:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I gather you mean ]? Dealing with conflict is not my strong suit. The topic ban is probably for the best. ] (]) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| == Misplaced Talk Message == | |||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = '''''This account has been ] indefinitely''''' as a ] that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. See ]. Note that using multiple accounts is ], but using them for ] reasons '''is not''', and that all edits made while evading a block or ban ]. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the ] first. ] | ] 08:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1= Request a set of completely uninvolved, neutral and fresh eyes to review this. I am absolutely not a sock, this is absurd. Blocking admin is involved and should not be blocking me repeatedly. He's friends with the Gamergate editors (where I am topic banned) who clearly contacted him trying to get him to block me. It's not a coincidence all of them are hounding me and he suddenly took so much interest in what I'm up to. | decline = I have read te SPI case and the evidence is even more compelling than a CU - which we could still do but don't need to. Your overall behaviour besides your sockpupetry is totally unacceptable for this collaborative environent and I have extended your block to include withdrawal of your talk page access. ] (]) 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Everytime he trades a player do we put it on his wikipedia? Or even when he attempts or wants to? Cause he also wants to trade Rudy Gay and there's no way they are trading Cousins. So why don't we write about whrn he wanted to trade igoudala in 2007 and when he traded JR Smith or Carmelo Anthony? How does Cousins differ from that and how is it important that he wants to trade him? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
| ⚫ | *I would provide evidence but I'm not sure what evidence I can provide that I'm me and not some other editor. It appears we were both interested in poker articles and User:2005 rubbed us both the wrong way with his abrasive editing style and the way he tries to WP:OWN all the poker articles. ] ] 08:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::I would have no problem with you adding any of those things, particularly the Carmelo Anthony trade. Theoretically any time a reliable source writes about him, that's a candidate for inclusion in the article. Are you aware of any policy or guideline that says otherwise? Because your objections seem based on your own original research (i.e. knowledge of basketball). And that doesn't factor into the editing process. ] (]) 20:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI. This was left on your User page, I've moved it here and signed it. — ] (]) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] ] (]) 20:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{smiley}} I try to be helpful. — ] (]) 20:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | {{tld|unblock|Another involved admin. We had a disagreement at RfA and he has been following me around everywhere. I request a set of fresh eyes, who has had no prior interactions with me. I am not a sock. ] ] 10:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}} | ||
| == Golden State Warriors == | |||
| *The abve unblock request can be ignred.It was being posted while I was actually activating the TPA withdrawal. User can go to ] or ] if they really want to appeal. ] (]) 10:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, but you're wrong. Your edit is vandalism. That sentence ''The Warriors are the current NBA champions, defeating the ] in six games in the ].'' is IRRELEVANT. And I will continue to REVERT this edit, because that has no place there! ] (]) 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I made some research and that edit was made on JUNE 17 and it's irrelevant. Here's that revision's info - ''07:01, 17 June 2015 DavidSteinle (talk | contribs) . . (69,160 bytes) (+169)''. I wonder how noone saw that garbage sooner. You can report me, but I'm right by reverting that edit. ] (]) 13:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You seriously think it's irrelevant they are the current NBA Champions? Is that some sort of joke? ] ] 13:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I added this to the talk page. I don't anticipate it will take long for consensus to collectively laugh at you, as I have. Maybe you should go to ] and remove that he is President of the United States, you probably think that's irrelevant, too. ] ] 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You clearly don't understand why that idiotic statement has no place in there. And everyone will laugh at you when there's a consensus. And why I should do something to Obama's article? Don't start an argument which you will lose. ] (]) 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | ==My RfA== | ||
| == Arbitration appeal == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" |{{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| Hey. There's a template ] for appealing arbitration enforcement sanctions. You may wish to reformat your request- alternatively, I'll do it for you if you'd like? <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 09:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |support= ] | |||
| :If you can do it i'd appreciate it. ] ] 09:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |neutral= ] | |||
| ::Embarassing- {{u|GoldenRing}} had already generously done it. Anyway, it's good now. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 09:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |oppose = ] | |||
| :::No problem. ] (]) 09:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | == RfA |
||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |<div class="center"><u><big>'''Pavlov's RfA reward'''</big></u></div>{{Break}} | |||
| Thank for !voting at my recent ]. You voted '''Oppose''' so you get {{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| ] for you. --] (]) 12:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |support= a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| |neutral= a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. | |||
| |oppose= only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| | ... to have a cookie anyway. | |||
| }}{{Break}} | |||
| ] This is your '''only warning'''; if you make ] on other people again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| |} | |||
| :Additional personal attacks on ]. – ] (]) 13:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:01, 12 March 2023
July 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Handpolk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary, I warned them for this. The Banner was edit warring across multiple articles, I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made a single revert of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Overall, I agree with the blocking admin's description of events leading up to your block. In future, if an editor leaves you a message saying that you are giving out too many warnings, don't respond by issuing another warning. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 4 July 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.
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 08:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Handpolk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Request a set of completely uninvolved, neutral and fresh eyes to review this. I am absolutely not a sock, this is absurd. Blocking admin is involved and should not be blocking me repeatedly. He's friends with the Gamergate editors (where I am topic banned) who clearly contacted him trying to get him to block me. It's not a coincidence all of them are hounding me and he suddenly took so much interest in what I'm up to.
Decline reason:
I have read te SPI case and the evidence is even more compelling than a CU - which we could still do but don't need to. Your overall behaviour besides your sockpupetry is totally unacceptable for this collaborative environent and I have extended your block to include withdrawal of your talk page access. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 6 July 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.
- I would provide evidence but I'm not sure what evidence I can provide that I'm me and not some other editor. It appears we were both interested in poker articles and User:2005 rubbed us both the wrong way with his abrasive editing style and the way he tries to WP:OWN all the poker articles. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|Another involved admin. We had a disagreement at RfA and he has been following me around everywhere. I request a set of fresh eyes, who has had no prior interactions with me. I am not a sock. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}}
- The abve unblock request can be ignred.It was being posted while I was actually activating the TPA withdrawal. User can go to WP:BASC or WP:UTRS if they really want to appeal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |