User talk:FDR: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:33, 21 October 2006 editFDR (talk \| contribs)1,193 editsNo edit summary← 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.
(231 intermediate revisions by 20 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)

Latest revision as of 07:41, 23 June 2015

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)