| Revision as of 01:52, 6 December 2007 editFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →Personal Attacks← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:16, 6 December 2007 edit undoMetsguy234 (talk | contribs)122 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| Note to reviewing admin. Please note the discussions above and the other discussions linked from those discussions, I'm already engaged in dialogue with the blocking admin, so I don't feel I can unblock without waiting for a response there, but what I see here is an account created by someone from another wiki, not an account created for the sole purpose of causing trouble and insulting people. At the very least, I suggest the indefinite block should be turned into a definite block (say, a week), or overturned completely. But the best thing to do might be to wait for Neil to comment, because I would like to see a note in the unblock log to the effect that the account was too new to properly judge whether the contributions might improve (ie. "No good contributions" is excessive), and that the allegation of creating an account to attack others is not sustainable when you look at the creation history. It was created by someone arriving here from another wiki over a year ago. ] (]) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | Note to reviewing admin. Please note the discussions above and the other discussions linked from those discussions, I'm already engaged in dialogue with the blocking admin, so I don't feel I can unblock without waiting for a response there, but what I see here is an account created by someone from another wiki, not an account created for the sole purpose of causing trouble and insulting people. At the very least, I suggest the indefinite block should be turned into a definite block (say, a week), or overturned completely. But the best thing to do might be to wait for Neil to comment, because I would like to see a note in the unblock log to the effect that the account was too new to properly judge whether the contributions might improve (ie. "No good contributions" is excessive), and that the allegation of creating an account to attack others is not sustainable when you look at the creation history. It was created by someone arriving here from another wiki over a year ago. ] (]) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his , he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring. —] (]) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | :It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his , he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring. —] (]) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Misplaced Pages account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way. | |||
| P.S.- I remember someone (I believe it was Neil) citing my message on an anon's talk page against me because of my comment "I'm looking into your identity.". There's a misunderstanding here. I used to write for a school newspaper and I was doing research on a school computer (not logged in). I found that the IP of the computer I was using had done some bad edits in the past. I decided to write an article about it and also attempt to find who was vandalizing the pages- since it was someone at my school- I never meant it as a stalker-type thing. Sorry if it was taken that way... | |||
| ] (]) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:16, 6 December 2007
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as My Potty and I) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as The Berenstain Bears Cook-It!: Breakfast for Mama!) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
Please do not place links on user talk pages which contain personal attacks. Franamax (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, it was a link to a newspaper article that covered the Durova incident. I don't think we should get into the business of accusing The Register of making personal attacks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- To explain this a little bit, the link had been added and removed earlier in the day and Durova had also responded to the previous poster. I don't think The Register is an attack site but I found the article somewhat lacking in balance and certain quotes and statements could be construed as slipping in a PA in the guise of a news link. I had also just previously removed a definite PA on Durova, so perhaps I acted somewhat reflexively and could have worded this notice better. I was still considering how to answer Mets post on my talk page (where they say that their question has already been answered - so why did you ask then?) when I saw that Mets had been indeffed. I am a little surprised at the severity of the response to Mets' actions - but that is being discussed extensivley elsewhere by others ;) I would support removal of Mets block, perhaps with some kind of a warning. Franamax (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
This account is blocked. I'm sure you can find something better to do then create Misplaced Pages accounts solely to cause trouble and insult people. Neil ☎ 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Metsguy234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User only asked a question about an article he read online and asked for an article to be made more neutral- has never personally insulted anyone- most other edits have been good
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason you were blocked. — Yamla (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (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.
- For the record, discussion about this block has taken place at the blocking admin's talk page. See User talk:Neil#Indefinite blocks versus warnings and calming things down (permanent link as at time of writing). I am waiting for Neil to respond there, but my opinion is that the allegation that this account was created "solely to cause trouble and insult people" is not warranted. Another editor has agreed with me, so I am hopeful this can be sorted out when Neil logs back on. I am going to leave a note for Yamla as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that the unblock request does not address the reason given for the block. However, if this user makes another unblock request, I hope and expect the reviewing admin to review independently of me and override my decline if they believe it warranted. Such would always be appropriate even when the block has not been questioned, as it has here. --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Metsguy234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User did not know that his comments would be taken offensively and did not intend for this to happenNotes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=User did not know that his comments would be taken offensively and did not intend for this to happen |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=User did not know that his comments would be taken offensively and did not intend for this to happen |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=User did not know that his comments would be taken offensively and did not intend for this to happen |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Note to reviewing admin. Please note the discussions above and the other discussions linked from those discussions, I'm already engaged in dialogue with the blocking admin, so I don't feel I can unblock without waiting for a response there, but what I see here is an account created by someone from another wiki, not an account created for the sole purpose of causing trouble and insulting people. At the very least, I suggest the indefinite block should be turned into a definite block (say, a week), or overturned completely. But the best thing to do might be to wait for Neil to comment, because I would like to see a note in the unblock log to the effect that the account was too new to properly judge whether the contributions might improve (ie. "No good contributions" is excessive), and that the allegation of creating an account to attack others is not sustainable when you look at the creation history. It was created by someone arriving here from another wiki over a year ago. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Misplaced Pages account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way. P.S.- I remember someone (I believe it was Neil) citing my message on an anon's talk page against me because of my comment "I'm looking into your identity.". There's a misunderstanding here. I used to write for a school newspaper and I was doing research on a school computer (not logged in). I found that the IP of the computer I was using had done some bad edits in the past. I decided to write an article about it and also attempt to find who was vandalizing the pages- since it was someone at my school- I never meant it as a stalker-type thing. Sorry if it was taken that way... Metsguy234 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Category: