| Revision as of 12:45, 16 June 2006 editSocafan (talk | contribs)1,024 edits →Unblock request: removed as it works now, thank you so much, Theresa!← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:01, 16 June 2006 edit undoSocafan (talk | contribs)1,024 edits →[]: removed, doneNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| :::A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. ] | ] 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | :::A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. ] | ] 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| As the admin who blocked me removed the source from the article for the number of signatories , here is a link to a source that can be accessed without registration: . It also shows that the United States were indeed not removed from the list of signatories as written in the article with a tag for "citation needed". ] 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval == | == Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval == | ||
Revision as of 13:01, 16 June 2006
Welcome!
Hello, Socafan, and welcome 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:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
You may also be interested in the Misplaced Pages:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Guettarda 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that was when I was a noob in regards to userfying stuff. The original page was a random page created by the user and it appeared to be user page stuff. Also, it was late at night and I am sorry if it disturbed you. If there is anything I can do leave a message, Yanksox 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
re: block
As I said on AN/I, if he will just promise to stop evading the block, I will reduce it back to a week. So far he hasn't contacted me. I think my offer is reasonable, and as someone else pointed out on his talk, he can open an RFC against me or anyone else after the week is up. He was causing a lot of disruption before and especially after his block, so I think he needs some time to cool off. Of course if he said he'd stop the disruption and I thought he was being serious, I'd unblock him entirely. But again, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- He was unappologetically evading a block and causing disruption. There's simply no excuse for that. If he's not mature enough to realize that, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. I think I'm being reasonable. --W.marsh 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine, and in fact, it's all I'm asking for... if he says he will stop evading the block, I will take it back down to the 1 week. Anything beyond that he'll need to talk to the admin who gave the 1 week block, not me. --W.marsh 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request
- You need to contact the blocking admin. --pgk 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to contact him if he blocks me? Furthermore, I do not trust him and think other admins should handle this case. He blocked without any basis, apparently as he tries to censor me because he disagrees with me in the case of another user whose original block was unfair: Dabljuh. Socafan 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Through the email this user link on his user page, or via the mailing list. Since the user has check user ability and most other admins don't I cannot review the same information as he has, so I cannot fully review. --pgk 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The email option is only available if you provide an email address yourself. I have not as I already get enough spam. I know of no mailing list and do not want to participate in any. Furthermore, as I wrote, I do not trust this user. He has not provided any evidence for his claim, thus the block should be undone until he does so - which he cannot because his claim is false. Please stop undoing my unblock request unless you have reason to decide upon it, thank you. Socafan 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Through the email this user link on his user page, or via the mailing list. Since the user has check user ability and most other admins don't I cannot review the same information as he has, so I cannot fully review. --pgk 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to contact him if he blocks me? Furthermore, I do not trust him and think other admins should handle this case. He blocked without any basis, apparently as he tries to censor me because he disagrees with me in the case of another user whose original block was unfair: Dabljuh. Socafan 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not re-add the unblock template. You've been told how to resolve the problem, please do so. If you continue re-adding the template without taking any other steps, we may be forced to block your talk page from editing. Shell 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- You cannot force me to rely on an abusive admin. And as I explained already I could not do that anyways. Socafan 10:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- After talking with the blocking admin, I've unblocked you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky | picture popups 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval
and promise not to ever do this again. Socafan 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. The Foundation's privacy policy allows information on the general location of an individual to be released; saying "He's coming from ---" or "He's editing from ---" is perfectly within policy. I suggest that the next time you call someone out, you get your facts straight before you make a total fool of yourself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- There was absolutely no need to infringe on other users' privacy. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Please show me where in the policy it is indicated you are allowed to reveal where users edit from. Privacy policy says: Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym. When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public. Socafan 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's technically in the Checkuser policy, though I think you are correct that it is contradictory to the privacy policy, which is probably more important. I reccomend taking it up on the Checkuser talk page, not with Essjay. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I cannot access that page as another admin blocked me without any basis. The policy you cite reads: Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible. - I did not commit any abuse.
- If you're in any doubt, give no detail. Both these principles were violated. Socafan 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's technically in the Checkuser policy, though I think you are correct that it is contradictory to the privacy policy, which is probably more important. I reccomend taking it up on the Checkuser talk page, not with Essjay. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)