Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 23 January 2015

This user has Asperger's.

If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

Thanks for stopping by!

Here in Misplaced Pages, I go by "Winkelvi". I enjoy patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses. As a reviewer, I'm also often reviewing and then either accepting or rejecting pending changes. While I try to be accurate with the reverts I make and the subsequent warnings I leave on talk pages, I am only human and will make mistakes from time to time. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page If you want to talk about article edits, it's really best to do so at the article's talk page. If you do so, and your comments regard changes I've made there, please ping me.

When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass.

If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere. Any whining, complaining, angry or trolling posts are subject to immediate deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Difference between categories, sections, and headings

These edit summaries were initially confusing. A section begins with a heading. A subsection begins with a subheading, but calling it a heading will be fully understood. Categories are used to help organize the vast collection of articles in Misplaced Pages and are something else entirely, but are hierarchical, so there is such a thing as a subcategory, but it has very little to do with the content of an article. I usually expect edit summaries that mention "categories" to be for edits that add/remove/change one or more ] links on the page. This is intended as friendly advice to help with future editing; please don't take it wrongly if I've worded it poorly. I'm trying to keep the overall amount of confusion around the Donna Douglas article to a minimum. (I'll watch this page for a while for a reply.) Pathore (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries are never perfect, they often are confusing - that's why we have diffs to look at what actually happened. I never go solely on an edit summary. That's said, I'll try to be more precise in the areas you've pointed out, but honestly, I'm not going to take great pains to get an edit summary perfect. I figure that as long as someone isn't using an edit summary for the wrong reasons and is at least using the edit summary to begoin with, perfection in edit summary nomenclature is at the bottom of the priority list. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Several of my edit summaries have various errors, including one where I fixed a typo in the article and made a new typo in the edit summary. It's not like Misplaced Pages has a deadline or anything. ☺ Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, Pathore: Recognizing that I cleaned up a totally screwed up article would have been a better thing, a nicer thing to come here with before pointing out that you think I made your editing there more difficult. Again, priorities. No matter if I didn't produce edit summaries up to your standards, the article is in much better shape now than it was 24 hours ago because I took the time and effort to get it that way. In my opinion, there's a plethora of negative criticism in Misplaced Pages when there should be a plethora of thanks given to the volunteer editors who make te 'pedia a better online resource. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't make my editing more difficult and thanks for cleaning up the article. I had thought that thanks for your contributions went without saying. I intended for this to be entirely constructive criticism and advice for the future, on an assumption that you may have been unaware of that distinction. I apologize if I have caused offense. Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Only minimally offensive, and not enough for me to want to you think that I'm unhappy with your commets here, Pathore. I think you hit me at a bad moment when I was contemplating how I've never seen another organzation depending on volunteer workers that is in general less appreciative of those volunteers on a day-to-day, and sometimes moment-to-moment basis. So, all that in mind, please don't take my comments personal or to mean that I'm not interested in working with you cooperatively. Like I said: your message came at a bad moment. Thanks, and Happy New Year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I've had my bad moments too. Happy New Year to you too. Pathore (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much

You are very kind. --talk→ WPPilot  20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So are you, WPPilot. Keep moving forward, keep contributing, and try not to look back at bad editor behavior. It will eat you up if you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

DONE - thanks again! --talk→ WPPilot  20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

revert

That was an accidental rollback from my watchlist. I've requested rollback removal so I don't misclick again.Cube lurker (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

albert jacob page

regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:202.89.168.229&redirect=no

what was it I wrote that constituted vandalism? I know this person personally and I did not mean any harm or ill-intent. I wouldnt even dream of writing negativity I only wish this person well. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP 202.89.168.229, if you note the comments from me on your talk page, the wording states your edits looked like vandalism, not that they were definitely being classified as vandalism. Taking a look at what you did way back in May, your edits did look suspicious because there were some obvious errors made and not corrected. After making the errors you blanked a section without putting back in what you removed. As well, you did not use the edit summary indicating why you were making the edits you did. Further, when you blanked the section, a warning tag appeared noting "Section blanking". All of that together combined with these edits being done by someone who hasn't created a user account says "possible vandalism" to editors who have been here a while. I hope your edits were truly made in good faith and that you truly didn't mean harm. Coming here and asking what the deal was is a good faith effort on your part and it's appreciated. If you'd like to edit articles in Misplaced Pages in a productive manner, you're welcome to do that. I'd advise creating an account first. If you choose not to do that, please be sure to use edit summaries to explain your edits, that will help other editors to know better your intentions. I will put a welcome message on your talk page that has helpful information and advice about editing Misplaced Pages - please read it for better understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Good luck! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi winkelvi

I remeber now that your reminded me. I did delete info and didn't know how to get it back. It was the first time I attempted to edit Misplaced Pages and I bit off more than I could chew. I'm learning now and just made an edit on the VW polo sections his week without breaking anything (I hope) :-). I'll consider an account. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I hope things go better for you editing-wise and you enjoy what you do here. Take care. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Meghan Trainor. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan edits

The edits made were to highlight the fact that him joining and then leaving the Wyatt Family changed him to villain and hero, respectively. Also, he is a former member of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.28.107 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The edits had no sources to support them, you didn't use the edit summary to explain the edits, they didn't seem encyclopedic in tone, and the wording really didn't make sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvas warning

Winkelvi, please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing. I have no doubt you will take it in the spirit in which it was given: as a warning, sure, but more as a bit of advice. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I will. I really didn't believe what I was doing was canvassing. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓

All About That Bass

Even if it isn't WP:UNANIMOUS, You have been reverted by 3 editors in the last 24 hours. That is temporary consensus. Also, if an editor is a musician's fan, it doesn't make there comments automatically void. In fact, most of Good and Featured music articles are written by fans.-- Marano 01:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And you've been reverted by someone with much more experience and clout. So, there you go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

YGM

I sent you an email when you get a second. -- Calidum 08:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I will have to wait until morning to take a look, but will get back to you. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

)

A cupcake for you!

Just sending a bit of Wikilove your way through cupcakes! livelikemusic 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, livelikemusic, you made my day brighter. Take care,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So glad I could do that for you! Keep your head up and keep on keepin' on! (: livelikemusic 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm sorry about all the crap going on at ANI right now. I'm not completely aware of what's going on at all the articles being discussed, but I know that the Meghan Trainor editors are completely out of line with their harassment, baiting, and bringing up irrelevant personal details. Keep your head up! :)

–Chase (talk / contribs) 14:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Very nice of you, Chase. Thanks so much and have a great Sunday! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You definitely got too much shit there, Winkelvi. I really hope that doesn't happen again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Snuggums. I appreciate the kindness. And look forward to working with you, as always. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

3RR violation at All About That Bass

Starting at 00:19 on 21 January, you seem to have broken WP:3RR at All About That Bass. You may be able to avoid a block if you will promise not to edit the article for one week. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, not trying to be difficult, but I thought I was at 3RR, but didn't go further than 3RR that's why I wrote in my edit summary that I wouldn't be reverting again. So, I'm confused. Could you tell me/point out what I'm missing? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your four reverts were: 00:19, 17:47, 18:38 and 18:53. Per WP:EW, all reverts on the article in 24 hours are counted, whether they are about the same or different material. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see that now. Obviously, I need to pay closer attention. I will agree to the one week, but it's truly not necessary. I get the point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept this agreement in lieu of a block for the 3RR violation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Title EP

Hello, Winkelvi, maybe you did not see well, but I did add a source. Here's the url, if you want to check: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6443849/meghan-trainor-title-debut-number-one Jose.rms (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jose.rms: Sourcing wasn't the issue. As my edit summary read, "No rationale for content addition given, as written, difficult to understand." You gave no explanation in an edit summary and what you wrote wasn't gramatically correct, making it difficult to understand. Please see WP:EDITSUMMARY and WP:COMPETENCE for more of an explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

• From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief

• Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost

• Interview: WWII veteran honors shipmates through Misplaced Pages editing

• News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections

• Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better

• In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers

• Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess

• Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sally Field

Hi, why did you delete my edit? It was perfectly accurate. In future, contact me before doing so. Regards, Jpatts.

Jpatts, as the edit summary I left stated (see this ), your addition was unsourced. It's important to make sure new content added to an article is sourced. If it isn't, it's likely to be challenged. When added to a biography of a living person and no source accompanies the addition, it's liable to be removed immediately. I apologize for not leaving a message at your talk page regarding the reasons for the reversion and any confusion you may have experienced because of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring block for 48 hours

Because of your continuous edit warring over multiple pages over the last week, I have blocked you for 48 hours. This on-going drama has become very disruptive. The continual back and forth on multiple pages by both sides needs to end. I highly encourage you all to work together to form consensuses at talk pages before implemented these edits. After 48 hours, your block will expire. As always, blocks may be appealed using {{unblock|reason}}. only (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? He vandalized a page, blanked it. A page I wasn't forbidden to edit. What am I supposed to do when I see an article completely blanked -- TWICE -- am I to let it be and ask an administrator if I can have permission to revert it back to include content? This is bullshit. And a bad block, only. This needs to be reversed and removed from my block record. I did nothing wrong. If you think I sound pissed off, you're right, I am. Because I don't understand why this happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Blanking a page and creating a redirect are two very different things. See the WP:BRD. You were bold. He reverted. You discuss. only (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

He reverted? He blanked out an article. What is there to discuss? It. Looked. Like. Vandalism. To. Me. That's why I filed a vandal report on it the first time he did it. After what I've been through with both Lips and Marano, I think it would look like vandalism to a lot of people. They both have a history of this kind of crap, and this looked like more of the same. MaranoFan had just finished vandalizing my user space and harassing me again He and his friends had done the same numerous times a few days ago to include vandalism, user space harassment, bogus warnings, bogus report filings: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . After what I had been dealing with from these guys, blanking an article I created with no communication from anyone whatsoever was just more vandalism from what I could see.

When User:EdJohnston left the above comments about edit warring yesterday, I was told to not edit a specific article for a week, not "Revert someone for completely blanking an article and you will be blocked without notice". How is reverting vandalism edit warring, especially when it's not 3RR? Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Without 3RR happening, with no warning, and with me only restoring blanked content to an article by someone who now has a history of vandalism, this is looks like punishment to me. Something to "teach me a lesson". What disruption is being prevented by blocking me for reverting what was not violating 3RR and was perceived to be vandalism from an established vandal at an article I created who has been harassing me? A note or comment or even a warning on my talk page wouldn't have sufficed? It would have, but I was not given the opportunity. As far as creating a redirect -- what redirect? I was clueless about a redirect at the time. I only saw vandalism by an established vandal and harasser who has been told he was lucky to not have been blocked over edit warring along with his harassment and vandalism.

I could understand this block if someone would give me a reasonable, rational explanation that proves I was being disruptive, that I would have continued being disruptive if someone had taken the time to mention the redirect and how Lips' article blanking was not vandalism. Because, like I've already said in total honesty, I saw and reverted vandalism that was a continuation of what Lips and two others had been doing for days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, you reported it as vandalism and were told quite clearly that it was not vandalism. From that point on, you were simply edit warring over a content dispute. --jpgordon 17:11, 22 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.

Winkelvi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Addendum that was initially a response to Ed Johnston below:

I now understand more succinctly what Ed is saying when he referred to me fighting with editors and (when he said on his talk page) that I get into fights when I might not have to. Administrators deal with a lot of crap here, and I sincerely have never intended to be one of the crap "doers". It has not been my intent to make more work for any administrator. Like I've already said, my intentions were honest and not intended to disrupt. But even in the midst of my good intentions, I now see how my behavior has been disruptive, and for that I offer my sincere apologies. Ed and a number of other administrators have been patient with me as well as greatly helpful when I've asked for advice. I never meant to betray anyone's trust, but it seems that by not being more mindful, I have, indeed, done just that.

In response to Ed's advice below ("I would hope for some kind of voluntary self-ban from the articles where you have been engaged in disputes"), I will be going through my watchlist and removing articles where I've had disputes since June 23, 2014 and then staying away from editing them. That date is the benchmark because that would take me back to my first block for edit warring.

I'm the type of person who learns from their mistakes once those mistakes are clear to me. And I have learned from this. Behavior-wise, I will be moving onward and upward from this point on, not just forward. Thanks for considering my unblock request.

Notes:

• 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=], I did not know anything had come from the vandalism report. I didn't even know it until you mentioned it here. So, this in mind, I have learned a few things: no knee jerk reverting out of anger (in this case, I was angry at Lips vandalizing the article again and harassing me again); no knee-jerk reverting, period (it should be the last thing I consider doing); take a breath and slow down; and no reverting until I'm very, very sure of what I'm doing and that it complies with policy. Addendum that was initially a response to ] below: I now understand more succinctly what Ed is saying when he referred to me fighting with editors and (when he said on his talk page) that I get into fights when I might not have to. Administrators deal with a lot of crap here, and I sincerely have never intended to be one of the crap "doers". It has not been my intent to make more work for any administrator. Like I've already said, my intentions were honest and not intended to disrupt. But even in the midst of my good intentions, I now see how my behavior has been disruptive, and for that I offer my sincere apologies. Ed and a number of other administrators have been patient with me as well as greatly helpful when I've asked for advice. I never meant to betray anyone's trust, but it seems that by not being more mindful, I have, indeed, done just that. In response to Ed's advice below ("I would hope for some kind of voluntary self-ban from the articles where you have been engaged in disputes"), I will be going through my watchlist and removing articles where I've had disputes since June 23, 2014 and then staying away from editing them. That date is the benchmark because that would take me back to my first block for edit warring. I'm the type of person who learns from their mistakes once those mistakes are clear to me. And I have learned from this. Behavior-wise, I will be moving onward and upward from this point on, not just forward. Thanks for considering my unblock request. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) |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=], I did not know anything had come from the vandalism report. I didn't even know it until you mentioned it here. So, this in mind, I have learned a few things: no knee jerk reverting out of anger (in this case, I was angry at Lips vandalizing the article again and harassing me again); no knee-jerk reverting, period (it should be the last thing I consider doing); take a breath and slow down; and no reverting until I'm very, very sure of what I'm doing and that it complies with policy. Addendum that was initially a response to ] below: I now understand more succinctly what Ed is saying when he referred to me fighting with editors and (when he said on his talk page) that I get into fights when I might not have to. Administrators deal with a lot of crap here, and I sincerely have never intended to be one of the crap "doers". It has not been my intent to make more work for any administrator. Like I've already said, my intentions were honest and not intended to disrupt. But even in the midst of my good intentions, I now see how my behavior has been disruptive, and for that I offer my sincere apologies. Ed and a number of other administrators have been patient with me as well as greatly helpful when I've asked for advice. I never meant to betray anyone's trust, but it seems that by not being more mindful, I have, indeed, done just that. In response to Ed's advice below ("I would hope for some kind of voluntary self-ban from the articles where you have been engaged in disputes"), I will be going through my watchlist and removing articles where I've had disputes since June 23, 2014 and then staying away from editing them. That date is the benchmark because that would take me back to my first block for edit warring. I'm the type of person who learns from their mistakes once those mistakes are clear to me. And I have learned from this. Behavior-wise, I will be moving onward and upward from this point on, not just forward. Thanks for considering my unblock request. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) |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=], I did not know anything had come from the vandalism report. I didn't even know it until you mentioned it here. So, this in mind, I have learned a few things: no knee jerk reverting out of anger (in this case, I was angry at Lips vandalizing the article again and harassing me again); no knee-jerk reverting, period (it should be the last thing I consider doing); take a breath and slow down; and no reverting until I'm very, very sure of what I'm doing and that it complies with policy. Addendum that was initially a response to ] below: I now understand more succinctly what Ed is saying when he referred to me fighting with editors and (when he said on his talk page) that I get into fights when I might not have to. Administrators deal with a lot of crap here, and I sincerely have never intended to be one of the crap "doers". It has not been my intent to make more work for any administrator. Like I've already said, my intentions were honest and not intended to disrupt. But even in the midst of my good intentions, I now see how my behavior has been disruptive, and for that I offer my sincere apologies. Ed and a number of other administrators have been patient with me as well as greatly helpful when I've asked for advice. I never meant to betray anyone's trust, but it seems that by not being more mindful, I have, indeed, done just that. In response to Ed's advice below ("I would hope for some kind of voluntary self-ban from the articles where you have been engaged in disputes"), I will be going through my watchlist and removing articles where I've had disputes since June 23, 2014 and then staying away from editing them. That date is the benchmark because that would take me back to my first block for edit warring. I'm the type of person who learns from their mistakes once those mistakes are clear to me. And I have learned from this. Behavior-wise, I will be moving onward and upward from this point on, not just forward. Thanks for considering my unblock request. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You undid a redirection of All About That Bass as 'vandalism'. The redirect was *already in place* at the time you reverted, so your claim about 'blanking' is not credible. Redirecting an article is not an attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Why not revise your unblock request and leave out the parts that no admin is going to believe. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, they should believe it, because I'm not a liar. Just because someone is blocked for alleged edit warring, suddenly AGF no longer applies? It looked like vandalism to me. That's what happened. I have no reason to lie about it, and even if I did have a reason, I still wouldn't lie about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If I were the one deciding on your unblock, I wouldn't be persuaded by your repentance. This pattern has gone on for too long. I would hope for some kind of voluntary self-ban from the articles where you have been engaged in disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, if you are talking about the Meghan Trainor-related articles, no problem. It has become clear to me that too many of the people who edit such articles are immature newbies and dealing with them is not worth the grief they've given me or the stress I've allowed myself to feel over their poor editing skills and behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticizing other editors in an unblock request is usually not a winning move. See WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And how would you like me to refer to a crew that has vandalized my user space numerous times, taunted me over and over again, filed bogus infraction reports against me, and committed personal attacks against me continually on talk pages, in edit summaries, and at noticeboards without ceasing? I've refrained time and again from saying publicly what I really think of them until now. Ed, this isn't a case of NOTTHEM, it's a case of having restrained myself for a week and now calling a spade a spade. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're now giving reasons to the reviewing admins for why lifting your block would be a bad idea. Admins spend a lot of their time stopping fights and now you want to fight more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no desire to "fight more". I have no desire to fight with anyone. I was merely venting after of week of Misplaced Pages crap lobbed at me from edtiors. I have no desire nor intention to engage or be present at any of the articles the three who have been goading me frequent. That would include music-related articles they edit apart from those related to Meghan Trainor. You are misunderstanding me, probably because I'm not explaining myself well. I hope this is clear: iin addition to the things I outlined in the unblock request, you have my assurance of not "fighting" or editing the Trainor-related articles as well as articles Marano, Lips, and Ipad have already edited. Believe me Ed, I intend to avoid them and anything like this as much as possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I just read what you wrote at your talk page a couple of days ago (found here ). I now understand more succinctly what you mean as far as me fighting with editors in addition to your comment that I get into fights when I might not have to. Administrators deal with a lot of crap here, and I sincerely have never intended to be one of the crap "doers". It has not been my intent to make more work for you or anyone. Like I already said above, my intentions were honest and not intended to disrupt. At this time, however, I can now see how my behavior has been disruptive, even if unintentional. For that you have my sincere apologies. You and a number of other administrators have been patient with me as well as greatly helpful. I never meant to betray your trust or the trust of anyone, but it seems that by not being more mindful, I have, indeed, done just that. I'm someone who learns from their mistakes once those mistakes are clear to me. And I have learned from this. Behavior-wise, I will be moving onward and upward from this point on, not just forward. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock