| Revision as of 16:00, 24 August 2013 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,871 editsm Fixing links to archived content. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:30, 24 August 2013 edit undoStrangesad (talk | contribs)517 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Sockpuppeting == | |||
| '''This user believes in the project and is disgusted by ]. As a consequence, she endorses sock puppetry as a response to community abuse.''' | '''This user believes in the project and is disgusted by ]. As a consequence, she endorses sock puppetry as a response to community abuse.''' | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
| ::...and I have so much to lose, you know, the feeling of respect I get from this community... ] (]) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | ::...and I have so much to lose, you know, the feeling of respect I get from this community... ] (]) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Warning== | |||
| is shockingly bad advice. I don't know any of the context of this, and just found the page while looking at unblock requests. but advising someone to create sockpuppets to avoid a topic ban seems, on its surface, to be a really, ''really'' bad idea. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :What about not "on its surface"? ] (]) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't think of ''any'' time when advising someone else to break the rules that way would be a good idea. If you think that this person has been unfairly treated, the better thing to do would be making a strong case at ] that the topic ban was unreasonable and should be lifted. It's never a good idea to goad someone into actions that would certainly lead to a permanent block for them. Even if your''goal'' is that this person should be permanently blocked, it reflects badly on you to push them into it. A person who is not going to be a beneficial part of Misplaced Pages will eventually make that clear and be indefinitely blocked without any nudging. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you can't think of something that I can think of. We haven't found a common ground. I have no faith in ANI. ] (]) | |||
| ::::I came here to comment on the same bit of extremely bad advice, and completely agree with FisherQueen in this matter. I urge you to return to Humanpublic's talk page and retract your comment. If your intention is to help another editor, urging them to violate ] is certainly not the sort of "help" they need. Regards —] (]) 15:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Sometimes violating policies is what's right. ] (]) 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==We all look alike== | |||
| :Have you seen my (soon to be rejected) arbitration request? They think all atheists think the same. We are all part of a vast hate-driven conspiracy to attack Christianity. ] (]) 04:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'll take a look. They've upped my hours at work, so I have less time for Misplaced Pages now. ] (]) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. Will you be at the Meetup this month? ] (]) 19:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Your submission at ] == | |||
| <div style=" | |||
| border:solid 1px #57DB1E; | |||
| background:#E6FFE6; | |||
| padding:1em; | |||
| padding-top:0.5em; | |||
| padding-bottom:0.5em; | |||
| width:20em; | |||
| color:black; | |||
| margin-bottom: 1.5em; | |||
| margin-left: 1.5em; | |||
| width: 90%; | |||
| ">] '''], which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''<br> | |||
| You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to ]. {{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIp|{{trim|Strangesad}}}} | |||
| |You may wish to consider ] so you can create articles yourself | |||
| |Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can ], and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to ] if you prefer | |||
| }}. | |||
| * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the ''']'''. | |||
| * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}. | |||
| Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages! | |||
| ] (]) 01:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc talk--> | |||
| == Echo the elephant has been nominated ... == | |||
| Hi, thanks for writing the article about ]. I've nominated it for ]. In case you're not familiar with it, DYK is a section ] which highlights new content. Every ], DYK is devoted to quirky hooks that ''look'' like April Fools' jokes, but which are actually true. This is a highly anticipated event every year, and editors and readers flock to it. Almost every article in an April Fools' Day set gets over 5,000 views, most get at least 6,000–7,000, and many get over 10,000 or much more. I apologize if you already know all of this, but I was here for many years before I ever discovered DYK and the wonderful April Fools' Day tradition. | |||
| I have nominated your article (]) with an April Fools' Day hook. When it appears on the Main Page, it is likely to generate thousands of views of your article, but you'll have to wait until April 1 for this to happen. If you'd prefer that your DYK appear sooner, we could substitute a traditional hook (the "jokey" ones are ''only'' allowed on April Fools' Day). These regular hooks, in general, tend to produce fewer page views. | |||
| So it's your decision: use the quirky hook for the April Fools' Day celebration, or substitute a "normal" hook for a quicker Main Page appearance. | |||
| In either case, thanks again for writing about this significant animal. And, this may be about five months late, but ... welcome to Misplaced Pages! ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 19:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm honored that you nominated it. I like the hook. 360 days is a long time to wait, but "life's too short too rush. (I'm fed up with Misplaced Pages at the moment, so I might not be editing in a year.) ] (]) 15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, so we'll go with the April Fools' Day hook. I hope that whatever has you "fed up with Misplaced Pages at the moment" is a very temporary situation, and that you'll stick around and continue doing some quality work here. Thanks for your editing contributions! ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == AN == | |||
| Do not reopen the discussion again. You do not make me involved by just saying so. If you persist, you risk being blocked for ].--] (]) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You are involved because you are participating in the thread and taking sides on the issues presented. You made some comments, which I addressed, and then you archived the thread in response to my comments. It is eerily similar to HP's ANI thread that really began this mess. ] (]) 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you say something like this to me: "As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP" you are involved and should not be taking actions that require an uninvolved admin. ] (]) 19:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::This will be my only comment. There is nothing wrong with an admin closing a thread in which they participated except in circumstances that don't apply here. For example, if there's a request for a topic ban, the admin who determines the consensus should not have voted for or against the ban. You're wasting the community's time, which is not something new. To the extent the thread ever served a constructive purpose, it has ceased to do so. Move on to something else, hopefully something that involves improvement of articles rather than draining resources.--] (]) 19:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The action by JBW was unsupported by policy. The outing of someone's IP seems like a violation of policy, but I'm not sure. Asking about those things is not disruptive, and I note that the questiopns, which are very simple and straightforward, are still unanswered. ] (]) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding his IP, these are routinely used in SPI cases, and it was already discussed in his SPI case and that was how the a few days ago. The SPI case, and the ensuing block was visible by over 300 million internet users. That is obvious. ] (]) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice-->] (]) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Closed=== | |||
| I would encourage you to carefully read my close of the . You have come precariously close to the indef block. Remember that you agreed to a set of rules and policies when you started to edit here. ] and ] do not go over well (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I found this on your Talk page: | |||
| {{User:UBX/DGAF}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| ==Your use of multiple Misplaced Pages accounts== | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into ] by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at ], where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ], and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you ''have'' been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| |] | |||
| }} ] ] ] ] ♠ 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | It is unfortunate that your disagreements with some admins will apparently get you blocked. (''He who has the power rules''...) For my part, I commend you for standing up for what you believe. ~ ] (]) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == August 2013 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ] did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ''You have not provided any sources which contradict "virtually all". Please see the FAQ discussing this specific issue, and in particular ]. We are specifically prohibited by policy from evaluating the academic consensus for ourselves, but must rely on reliable sources to do so for us, and they use "virtually all". You have provided zero sources contradicting the evaluation of the academic consensus. | |||
| The article currently says: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." | |||
| Bart Ehrman says: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" (p. 285 of his book given above) | |||
| Van Voorst says on the theory of non-existence: "Biblical scholars and classical historians regard it as effectively refuted." (p. 16 of his book) | |||
| Grant says: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (p. 200 of his book)'' ] (]) 15:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| All of those sources are popular books, and none of them is a historian specializing in this subject. ] (]) 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :What source do you have, that states more than that author's own opinion, but that makes a statement about what the academic consensus is? Read the FAQ, and in particular read ] and ] This question has been EXTENSIVELY discussed, and has a very wide consensus, and you would need to introduce major reliable sources specifically addressing ] to change it. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::What such source do *you* have? I have read the FAQ. ] (]) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I quoted you 3 above. as well as the others discussed in the article and the archives linked. You can't just hand wave away reliable sources because they don't meet your personal criteria. At a minimum our sources you don't like beat your complete non-sources. ] (]) 16:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe I misunderstood. You asked for a source about academic consensus that is not just someone's opinion. I'm asking you the same. One of the sources used throughout the section on historicity is Van Voorst, whose Misplaced Pages page describes him as a pastor. ] (]) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You did misunderstand. Obviously every opinion is just somebody's opinion. The distinction is, are they stating their opinion about the historicity of Jesus, or are they stating their opinion about the consensus of the historicity of Jesus. Do you have any sources stating something other than virtually all scholars agree he existed? (IE, not "I don't believe he existed", but "nobody believed he existed" or "there is significant academic debate about if he existed", because otherwise we have multiple sources saying the consensus is he existed. (Including one who says he thinks Jesus did not exist, but admits he is in the small minority opinion). ] (]) 16:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == You do not have consensus for the changes you keep trying to make to the Jesus article == | |||
| Please have a look at this essay on consensus at wikipedia : ]. 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :None of my recent edits are changes I've tried to make before. And, they are all part of the basic integrity of the article. For example, two of the sources don't say what we say they do. So I removed them. ] (]) 14:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The proper action for that situation is to tag with {{Verify source}} or {{notinsource}} not delete the sources without discussion. ] (]) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Behavior on ] == | |||
| Strangesad, consider this a warning about edit warring on ]. You need to follow the ] cycle. If you make an edit and another editor reverts you, do not make the same edit again before obtaining consensus on the article Talk page. As a gesture of good faith, I suggest that you undo the edit you just did, which looks like your second attempt at the same edit. If I see you break ], I'm going to block you from editing. --] ] 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :* "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." | |||
| :*"Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately" | |||
| :*"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts ... simply because you don't like the changes.... provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Others have violated this guideline. | |||
| :In short, BRD is a two-way process Those who revert have an obligation to discuss. They have not met that obligation. I removed a source, because the source is misrepresented. I was specific--it is a survey of 19th century thought, and has nothing to do with modern views. It doesn't say what we say it does. Those who have reverted have merely asserted that I am being disruptive, and have not done their part of the "D" in "BRD". | |||
| :: That's an impressive chunk of wikilawyering, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. Stop edit warring. --] ] 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, OK. Thanks for listening. ] (]) 16:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have you noticed the edit you asked me to undo has now been accepted by two subsequent editors? ] (]) 16:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--] (]) 17:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's what the warning was for. ] (]) 17:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/I discussion == | |||
| *] | |||
| Based upon the consensus of the community discussion, you are ] from all pages (including discussion pages) related to ] or ], broadly construed. | |||
| You are also warned to stop removing/refactoring comments of other editors, further actions of this sort may lead to ] by any admin at their discretion. - <b>]</b> 00:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| ] Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 01:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm willing to ], as that was a lengthy post, and you (]) may not have seen this talk page notice until after you hit "save page". But it ends with that post. You are topic banned, and any further violations to it may lead to further sanction (such as being ]). - <b>]</b> 01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :There was no community consensus to topic ban. I think you are violating policy. See new discussion on ANI. Please provide an accounting of how you assessed community consensus. The majority of those wanting to ban have previously opposed my views on related articles, and thus are not supposed to be considered when assessing consensus. It is supposed to be a consensus of ''impartial'' editors. ] (]) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nonsense. Just because someone may have opposed you in something doesn't mean they're not objective, or that they're involved in the strict sense of ]. ] (]) 02:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's hardly nonsense to think that if you've opposed someone in a dispute, you're involved in the dispute. How do you define "involved in the underlying dispute"? ] (]) 02:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've attempted to respond at ]. - <b>]</b> 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I've closed your appeal with the topic ban endorsed, rather than it get lengthy and waste yet more time. The consensus was clear in the original discussion, and numerous other editors have now agreed with that decision. The patience people have for your approach here is wearing out and right now the only two routes you have are: | |||
| * Prove you can collaborate effectively in other areas of the encyclopaedia, and then appeal the ban after 6 months | |||
| * Appeal to arbcom via email to review the matter - this is how you appeal against what you believe ot be an incorrectly applied, endorsed topic ban | |||
| Any further threads you insist on opening about this will be disruptive and you may end up blocked. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 08:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The ban is abusive and will not be respected. | |||
| :This account is now subject to so much hate, it is useless. The only solution is to create a new account. | |||
| :Congratulations on causing sockpuppetry. | |||
| ] (]) 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've opened yet another thread about you at ]. I'm guessing this will now result in a block. I really wish you had taken advice given and attempted to show that you could work well with others, instead of threatening to sock and cause disruption. --] ] 11:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Strangesad; I certainly don't hate you. But you are now block. You appear to struggle working collaboratively - sit out the block and then consider whether you can work with others in less contentious topic areas. | |||
| @Laser Brain; please consider withdrawing the AN/I - I was paying attention to Strangesad's edits and have blocked him for the topic ban violation. More discussion of this topic is a waste. | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by 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 ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| :"Him"? You just assume every assertive editor has balls, huh? In the future, please refer to me as "that bitch." It is more in accord with your attitude. | |||
| :48 hours is pathetic. If you can't lay down the indef, get out of the kitchen. Pussy. ] (]) 11:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Strangesad, please realize that all restrictions apply to ''you'', the ''person''. There is nobody to blame for the topic ban but yourself - it's ''your'' actions that caused it. Even a ] is required to fully respect any and all restrictions that are placed on the original account. So, yes, although you ''could have'' in theory created a new account as per ], you would still have been subject to the same restrictions. As well, a clean start account must not edit topics that you were originally involved in anyway. | |||
| It is unfortunate that through your negative behaviour and failure to abide by the community norms that you have, indeed, created a bit of a bad name for yourself. Yes - you ''can'' fix it. Indeed, a topic ban is actually one of the ways to fix your own personal reputation. It's a way to go and edit positively in areas of the project that do not cause you grief, and regain a positive reputation. It's that easy. Eventually, any topic ban can be rescinded if you prove such community-based behaviour elsewhere <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It's always interesting when advice begins with a lecture assuming the advisee has erred, rather than any attempt to listen. That's not, actually, how respectful advice-giving works. ] (]) 11:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: But you ''have'' erred - your contributions (which are public record) have proven it. It's only ''you'' who ]. This is part of the problem: dozens of well-meaning people have tried to help you, and you refuse to listen to them <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Really? Which contributions prove it? ] (]) 11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh, the "unblock request" below ... it's a pretty immediate and obvious example. Do you understand why we only give short blocks? Because we believe the editor is salvageable ... you're starting to prove otherwise. If indeffed, you may never, ever, edit Misplaced Pages again until the block on '''this account''' is lifted ... is that what you truly want? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Forty-eight hours is a pussy block. I demand my rights as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions to be blocked for real. Indef now. Fucking pussies. ] (]) 11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | decline=Show me where the Geneva Convention applies to Misplaced Pages blocks. Miaow. ] (]) 11:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| :More seriously, I've seen good editing from you. (Don't ask for diffs...) Calm down (there's a challenge...) and either leave quietly without an indef (allowing an easy later return if desired) or get back to work. Up to you. Either way saves trouble for you and the rest of us. ] (]) 12:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, is a mature and thoughtful response. You're a good editor, but you're rapidly burning all bridges - and edits like that won't help anything. Please stop. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Making a sockpuppet is not burning a bridge. It is creating a new one. ] (]) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, no it's really not. All it does is alienate and infuriate other editors. You feel very strongly about a topic, and we get that - but no one cares whether you're right or wrong when you go off the deep end, as sockpuppetry would be seen. It would turn a minor dust-up into an indef block and likely community ban - and that serves no one, least of all you. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes ... seeing as the "herd" is the community, and the "herd mentality" is ] ... it's what ya signed up for and agreed to <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Herd mentality is where no-one argues. Consensus is where argument leads to a decision. Sometimes, there is no argument - but there's the chance of arguing. In a herd, if you argue, you're out. I quite often argue, but I don't go off and sulk if I'm on the 'losing' side. Misplaced Pages is an on-going project, and there's always another day. Stay in and argue - but don't argue that the moon is really floating in the pond and that it can be caught in a net. And don't create sockpuppets, because as sure as that ain't the moon floating there (and it ain't no cheese, neither), you'll be caught. Waste of time, waste of ability. Up to you, though. I'm not making decisions for you. ] (]) 17:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why do you think this is a pattern? ? I'm bummed I can't create a new account until the block expires. You guys are good! That's oaky, it gives me time to think of a new name. What do you think of "Dykenibble"? ] (]) 19:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Any and all sockpuppet accounts will be blocked as ]. You agreed to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies when you joined, and among them are ], ] - and ]. While blocking always leads to steam that needs to be blown off, if you want to remain part of the Misplaced Pages community you need to step back, have a nice cup of tea, and ] when it comes to the issues you've had here. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 04:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Dude's got big ovaries: "Religious POV has become dominant on WP while asking for reliable sources that feature evidence has become contemptible." | |||
| == Notice == | |||
| ] Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 02:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Strong support.''' ] (]) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :lol. It's like I never left. ] (]) 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for intentional violation of topic ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by 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 ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for intentional violation of topic ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by 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 ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 24 August 2013
This user believes in the project and is disgusted by the community. As a consequence, she endorses sock puppetry as a response to community abuse.
- Well, this is a quick way to get an indefinite block. Liz 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs)
- ...and I have so much to lose, you know, the feeling of respect I get from this community... Strangesad (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)