Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 16 January 2016

This user is in school. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while. They will be back on Misplaced Pages when school is over.

emailed you

Signing your posts

HI. When posting on talk pages, especially when leaving official ANI notifications, please remember to always sign your posts and check that you have done so. Cheers., --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - thanks for the reminder, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, my oversight. Document★Error 09:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages archived by a bot

Although the text has been copied to an archive and deleted from the main page the history is intact so just look up the date of the edit and then set the history to the year and month and there it is. -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

With Revision as of 12:39, 11 January 2015 you replaced this link with this diff. I don't know if you are taking the Micky or if you are really lost (and as I have not yet checked the others), I will explain how to fix this first one and leave you to make sure that you fix the others if they need fixing.

Steps

1. You go to the section you are interested in: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#a threat from colleague Legacypac
2. You look up the edit date you are interested in "Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)"
3. You now to to the ANI page and select history
4. You add to the year and the month fields (near at the top of the page) that you have found in the edit November 2014 and click Go
5. You scroll through the list until you find 19:53, 26 November 2014. As it is a high volume page you will probably want to set it to scroll by 500 at a time (if you do that it is on the second page).
6. Now you can summon up the diff in the usual way

-- PBS (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for patiently helping me do this. I've updated the link and now I know how to do it in the future. Document★Error 13:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A useful tool for automatically finding a know string of characters exist: Misplaced Pages:WikiBlame. It is primarily used to find an edito who breaches copyright, but it has other uses. So in this case you could use it to find what you are looking for: like this -- PBS (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. I don't regularly (actually, ever except with this case) find myself in situations in which I would need to use a tool called WikiBlame and hope not to in the future, but it is useful information to have nonetheless. Document★Error 14:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary restraints

Inform me on my talk page if you are willing to accept the voluntary restraints I have suggested on my closing of the ANI#Harassment case. -- PBS (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Career

I'm sorry to see how upset you are by recent happenings on ANI. Could I perhaps encourage you to take a longer-term perspective? You seem to think that a single block is the end of your productive wiki career. It just ain't so. Even PBS has not got a clean log, nor has Boing! said Zebedee, the last admin to block PBS, nor has Bishonen, who blocked Boing! said Zebedee. I'm not trying to disgrace those august persons here; I'm trying to help you see that this incident is not The End. The best way through it is to go find some articles to edit, peacefully. GoldenRing (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, agree, unconditionally, to PBS's conditions. GoldenRing (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I appreciate your kind note. However, I cannot answer "yes" as I absolutely cannot, in good conscience, agree to a topic ban on a topic I'm not editing, and haven't made an edit to in more than 4 months. A topic ban on a topic in which an editor isn't even involved has only one purpose and that is humiliation, which is not covered by WP:TBAN: the purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive.

Since "yes" is not a reasonable option, then I don't actually have a choice between "yes" or "no" and for me to respond at all would simply be to endorse this games-playing by PBS and his/her SPA friend. And, no, I don't take my now indef block lightly as I had a lot of articles I was actively working on and regret having to simply abandon them and terminate my WP career. However, my interest in generally obscure topics appears not to have put me in the social epicenter of WP and I don't have a list of friends and allies to call on so there's not much use in me wasting time flailing around desperately. Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to drop me a note and wish you the best. DocumentError (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cherberg Building.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cherberg Building.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. January (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sigma Delta Rho

Hello! Your submission of Sigma Delta Rho at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GiantSnowman 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

DocumentError with reference to the ANI § Harassment and your prevarication on my talk page ( § In ref to the ANI) I am going to block you account. I will not unblock it until you answer the question I asked you on closing the ANI. Do you accept the voluntary restrictions that were offered when the ANI was closed? No more prevarication, you must answer with one of the two following options

• Yes. I agree to the restrictions.
• No. I do not agree to the restrictions.

If you reply "yes" then you will be expected to keep to both the voluntary restrictions and the imposed restriction. If you reply "no" as I said in the closing of the ANI "I will open a new narrowly focused ANI so that the community can decide what to do ." -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@PBS:- DocumentError told you he would be away from Misplaced Pages for a while. Twenty minutes after his last edit to Misplaced Pages you threaten to block if he doesn't answer your question. After he didn't edit Misplaced Pages at all for 24 hours, you saw fit to impose an indef block. There is no evidence that DocumentError has logged on to see your threat. How on earth do you justify being offline and not answering questions as blockworthy? Because this block is punitive and indisputably not preventing disruption of any sort, it should be immediately lifted. Incidentally, your imposition of a statute of limitations on diffs is preposterous and you should lift that, too. Reyk _YO! 12:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's reasonable to expect User:DocumentError to give an answer one way or the other. The community should not have to put up with the ongoing warfare between DocumentError and Legacypac. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, EdJohnston. There was ongoing "warfare" between me and Legacypac. The most recent case I am entirely responsible for initiating, in fact, when I told him to stop bullying yet another new editor. So what's the difference between me and Legacypac? He's the only other editor I've ever had an issue with, while I'm but one of a laundry list of editors he is battling at any one moment in time. I contribute to WP across a wide spectrum of topics. He's a SPA. You guys keep handing out indeffs and TBANS like they're candy against the established editor-du-jour (including at least one verifiable SME) who has let out the slightest peep at how he's being savaged by LP while issuing "final warning" after "final warning" to LP. And the 3 admins involved in this utter circus all align to the same two wikiprojects. You've internalized your COI so completely, you're not even aware of it.

On any other topic other than ISIL LP would have been given a site ban a year ago for his tendentious editing, blanking articles, bringing editors ethnicity into discussions, OTHERPARENTing frivolous ANIs, 3RR, calling other editors "terrorist" (and worse), and generally bizarre behavior. The fact that I have had my sterling edit history marked by any block, let alone an indef (and not for any actual edit I made, but because I refused to participate in the radio shock jock "Just answer the question! Yes or no!" thing), just makes this whole process such a silly exercise that I can't take it all that seriously. When PBS TBANED me on a topic I haven't edited in 4 months, that's when this really jumped the shark.

Anyway, I hate to end my WP career on a sour note, but I enter indef blockage safe in the knowledge that I at least contributed 32 worthwhile articles, which is 32 more than the SPA (though I'm sure they'll all be blanked fairly soon by the SPA). And if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing, including doing my best to stick-up for a new editor getting torn a new one while everyone stood by smiling. Goodbye. DocumentError (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this was a good block. The editor had previously been warned that he needed to answer this question within 24 hours of his next edit, and had responded to that offer without answering. There was no way that he was unaware of the consequences of not answering. GoldenRing (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@PBS:, as per Reyk's observation and my repeated explanations to you, at this time I absolutely decline to be a participant in this weird game you've constructed, whereby, the answer of "no" constitutes an agreement by me for you to independently open an ANI on my behalf, but of your design ("if you reply "no" as I said in the closing of the ANI "I will open a new narrowly focused ANI"). If you want to present two mature yes/no options without strings of bizarre Russian Roulette scenarios attached I am happy to answer your questions, as I would be happy to answer anyone's questions. However, as an adult, I have no patience for playground nonsense and if that means you're going to indefinitely block me until I climb up on the jungle gym with you, then I guess that's it for me on WP. Have a good life. DocumentError (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See below #Block changed to end on 14 June 2015 -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sigma Delta Rho

On 19 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sigma Delta Rho, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after merging with the Theta Xi fraternity at Amherst College, Sigma Delta Rho (ΣΔΡ) moved into its new home, "the Zoo"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma Delta Rho. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco_1492. DocumentError (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Ross (Washington politician)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael Ross (Washington politician) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cptnono -- Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cptnono, thank you for taking this up. Unfortunately, PBS has indefinitely blocked me from Misplaced Pages so I won't be able to edit this article in response to your feedback. I wanted to let you know so you didn't spend any further time on the review. Thanks again and sorry for the hassle. DocumentError (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. If i have a chance to work on the article I will. Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cptnono. DocumentError (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States Lighthouse Society

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States Lighthouse Society you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Ross (Washington politician)

The article Michael Ross (Washington politician) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Michael Ross (Washington politician) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cptnono -- Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Delta Psi (University of Vermont)

On 2 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Delta Psi (University of Vermont), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Delta Psi fraternity at the University of Vermont was famous for its 100-keg Oktoberfest parties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Delta Psi (University of Vermont). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Owen Bush

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Owen Bush you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rationalobserver. I'm afraid I've been indefinitely blocked from editing by PBS so I will have to abandon this GA review. Please accept my apologies and regrets for any inconvenience. Regards - DocumentError (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rainbow Fraternity

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rainbow Fraternity you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Guerillero -- Guerillero (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Guerillero. I'm afraid I've been indefinitely blocked from editing by PBS so I will have to abandon this GA review. Please accept my apologies and regrets for any inconvenience. Regards - DocumentError (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rainbow Fraternity

The article Rainbow Fraternity you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Rainbow Fraternity for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Guerillero -- Guerillero (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request "America: Imagine the World Without Her"

Hi DocumentError, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that the above case, on which you were listed as a party, has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil 06:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of William Owen Bush

The article William Owen Bush you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Owen Bush for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States Lighthouse Society

The article United States Lighthouse Society you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:United States Lighthouse Society for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CorporateM -- CorporateM (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Owen Bush

The article William Owen Bush you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:William Owen Bush for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dregs of wine

Hello DocumentError,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dregs of wine for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. One life to live (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Block changed to end on 14 June 2015

This is to inform you that I have changed the block from indefinite to end at 23:38 on 14 June 2015. I have done this because the initial offer as laid out in ANI § Harassment was for a voluntary topic ban of six months. That six months will be up on 14 June.

Ping Legacypac

The ANI restriction remains in place: If either of you bring an ANI against the other in future neither of you are to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of the ANI (14 January 2015). If you do then expect administrative action.

The voluntary interaction ban end when the block ends, although I suggest you both keep your interactions as brief as content discussions allow.

-- PBS (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Further, I also reject PBS' unilateral imposition of a "statute of limitations," designed to restrain me from ever mentioning her friend's past injection of my race/ethnicity into edit discussions. If her friend does this again, I will absolutely point-out his past history of doing so, therefore, as I have repeatedly stated, will not accept some kind-of "double secret probation." Reyk and NE_Ent have also questioned, in the ANI PBS referenced, his/her authority to create statutes of limitations. Again, this is not an unblock request, this is a Block Review Request and the specific action requested is full reinstatement of the block to the form PBS originally applied it several weeks ago: indefinite. I have repeatedly rejected all of the ultimatums PBS keeps asking me to agree to and nothing has changed. An unappealed indef block, invariably, ends a users career on WP and PBS has offered no good reason why he/she slapped me with an indef and then, months later - long after I most likely would have quit checking WP - sneaked back to lower it. Therefore, either his/her original indef was grossly inappropriate, or he/she is making an error here and I deserve to be blocked indefinitely.

I request an admin or bureaucrat other than PBS rollback the changes PBS has made to my block so that the block log continues to indicate I am under an indef block imposed by PBS. I completely reject the validity of the reason for the original block, I completely and totally reject the conditions by which PBS has offered to lift it, and I further reject the authority of PBS to act as Misplaced Pages Lawgiver and self-assume special authority above and beyond that allowed to admins, such as "preventative TBANs" and "statutes of limitations" which have no basis in community-decided policies. DocumentError (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've taken over your block, and the duration is indefinite. PhilKnight (talk) 20:43, 10 March 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.

Thank you, PhilKnight. DocumentError (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responding because I was pinged. I think it's disappointing that you've chosen to go down this route. WP loses a good content editor because two stubborn people won't budge an inch. I do not see how letting the modified block expire would give it more of an appearance of legitimacy, and it is unclear to me what you hope to gain by this dramatic self-destruct. Reyk _YO! 08:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Reyk, however, you'll note PBS said If either of you bring an ANI against the other in future neither of you are to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of the ANI. In background, PBS wanted me to agree not to bring up her friends past mistakes. I said no and the community agreed she had no power to impose such a "statute of limitations." She then did a "dark alley block" on me, out of the view of the community and without announcing it to the involved parties, to guarantee my silence and her friend's protection. Block is not a cudgel by which admins can get editors to prostrate themselves before their majesty. The blocking/unblocking game PBS has been playing - and his/her unprecedented decision to impose a Topic Ban on me on a topic I have not been editing (which, by itself, probably warrants PBS' immediate de-admining) - is unparalleled for its patent abusiveness.

In short, if I agreed to PBS' unblock I would be acknowledging his/her authority to invoke an arbitrary statute of limitations to protect his/her friends from having their questionable behavior scrutinized, something both myself and the community have repeatedly rejected.

• I will continue to reject PBS' feverish attempts to unblock me before anyone notices his/her aberrant behavior in this episode. I will only accept unblocking by an uninvolved admin on my own merits, not as part of a quid pro quo or backroom deal with PBS. I'm a content editor; I don't do WikiPolitics.
• I refuse to file an appeal since it would elevate PBS' trollish indef to a magnum it does not deserve. Only the guilty appeal and I have done absolutely nothing wrong; I am totally unwilling to even consider offering an apology for my "crime" of asking PBS' friend to stop mentioning my skin color in edit discussions (which even PBS seemed to object to , but did her friend the favor of silencing me via indeff anyway to make sure I couldn't mention it in front of an admin who'd be likely to block her friend).
  Best - DocumentError (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Delta Upsilon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Delta Upsilon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of EricEnfermero -- EricEnfermero (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

EricEnfermero thank you very much and I apologize for this delayed reply. Unfortunately, PBS permanently blocked me from Misplaced Pages so I will not be able to proceed with the GA review. I apologize for any inconvenience this late notice causes you. DocumentError (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

PBS

User:PBS - after considering the counsel offered me by User:GoldenRing and User:Reyk, I am now ready to move forward with your offer here ], specifically I choose to accept option 2 of your ultimatum, to wit: If either DocumentError or Legacypac do not want to accept the voluntary restrictions placed upon them, then they are to inform me on my talk page and I will open a new narrowly focused ANI so that the community can decide what to do.

Please move forward with this option (unblocking + ANI) with the understanding I am rejecting the voluntary restrictions you previously offered, which you indicated I was free to do if I expressed acknowledgment (but not endorsement) of your editing and reposting of my original ANI. DocumentError (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, PhilKnight, I appreciate it. However, I request you please re-block my account. It is important to me this is done by the book. PBS issued a specific set of conditions by which my account would be unblocked, and was specific that there were no opportunities or options failing those conditions by which I would ever be unblocked. Those conditions, therefore, should be met. After having a flawless disciplinary record and being an active Wikipedian I suddenly found my entire WP career wrecked with the Scarlet Letter of a block and had myself sidelined for the better part of a year. I would like to know it wasn't done by passing fancy and that there was a reason behind PBS' decision to destroy me. Therefore, to unblock me after I haven't even met one of the conditions of unblocking would be punitively worse than just leaving me blocked.

Second, as per PBS' message to your talk page, he/she indicates that he/she does not object to unblocking because his/her friend hasn't edited WP for awhile. This will create an intolerable situation on my resumption of editing as the reason for my block, as per PBS, was because I would not agree to voluntarily accept his/her proposal of an unprecedented "preventative topic ban" (a topic ban on a topic I'd never edited). If you unblock me it will be unclear if I will again be subject to future "preventative topic bans" if PBS' friend decides to return. I really deserve to have this handled "by the book." DocumentError (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

blocking request

{{Admin help}}

I request to have the indefinite block on my account restored. I was blocked for failing to voluntarily agree to a newly devised sanction called a "preventative TBAN" (a topic ban on a topic I hadn't edited). A specific set of conditions was imposed by the blocking admin by which it would be lifted, to wit: either (a) I voluntarily agree to said preventative TBAN, OR (b) I reject said TBAN and allow PBS to file ANIs against other editors on my behalf; ANIs I had no wish to pursue. I have requested PBS lift the block under the terms he/she set under condition "B." If it is not, and it is simply quietly lifted and brushed under the rug, I will have no idea of my status with regard to said TBAN or various other conditions PBS devised.

Alternatively, I request to have an admin please post a note of substantially similar content to the below to my Talk page so that I might enjoy unambiguous clarification of my status and not linger under some sort of "double-secret probation."

DocumentError was unblocked on 16JUN2015. There were no conditions attached to this unblock. As of 16JUN2015 is not subject to any TBANS or IBANS, voluntary or otherwise. As of 16JUN2015, DocumentError is not not under any special restriction from referencing this edit ] in any discussion in which reference to it is otherwise topical and appropriate. As of 16JUN2015, DocumentError is not specifically prohibited from making an ANI filing against any other editor, except insofar as the general standards of WP:CIVIL, WP:DRAMA and WP:COMMONSENSE apply to all. DocumentError is in possession of the full rights, privileges, and responsibilities of any WP editor and is under no special, secret, or unique prohibition or probations of any kind.

I have gone from a sterling disciplinary record to getting quietly sidelined for 6 months in a back-alley block (a block out of view of the community or anyone who might raise objection), for refusing to agree to a non-existent sanction ("preventative TBAN") an admin individually created from thin air. It is unreasonable to expect me now to resume editing with PBS' Sword of Damocles hanging over my head. I deserve to have clarification of my status either by an unambiguous statement as above, or being re-blocked and letting the block lift proceed under the original conditions PBS set, whether or not he/she now finds those conditions embarrassing in retrospect or not. Thanks - DocumentError (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a valid use of {{adminhelp}}, since no one admin can make these sweeping changes. Please take this issue up with PBS (talk · contribs) and PhilKnight (talk · contribs), or on WP:ANI. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal - I hardly think it's a sweeping change. I'm simply asking to be re-blocked so PBS can see through, what Reyk called their "shakedown", of me to the bitter end. That may not seem like a big deal to you and probably not in the spirit of WP, and I'd normally agree. But try to see it from my perspective: I've been sidelined for nearly a year now - you can understand how irritating it would be to have someone simply come along and say "oops - guess it was a misunderstanding - *shrug* SORZ! You're unblocked!" Further, if I do not see through unblocking under the conditions PBS set, I will have no idea if the "pre-emptive TBAN" (a TBAN on a subject I hadn't edited) PBS imposed is in force or not. I might now like to edit this subject - can I? Can't I? I will have no way of knowing unless I see through the unblocking under the conditions PBS set, no matter how insane they may now seem to everyone. Again, all I'm asking for is an indefinite block. DocumentError (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Delta Upsilon

The article Delta Upsilon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Delta Upsilon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of EricEnfermero -- EricEnfermero (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Delta Psi (University of Vermont)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Delta Psi (University of Vermont) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wugapodes. I apologize you put in all this work for naught. Unfortunately, I have been indefinitely blocked by PBS so don't check WP as often, otherwise I would have tried to head off your review at the pass. Again, my apologies. DocumentError (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Delta Psi (University of Vermont)

The article Delta Psi (University of Vermont) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Delta Psi (University of Vermont) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@DocumentError: I noticed reading through your talk page and at the GA review for Delta Upsilon that you may be blocked? If so, are there any other editors I should notify about the GA review at Delta Psi (University of Vermont)?

Wugapodes - I'm afraid not. PBS indefinitely blocked me because I refused to agree to a TBAN on a set of topics I wasn't editing related to Iran (I'd previously made the mistake of revealing on my user page that I was ethnically Persian). What I can contribute to WP in terms of content, therefore, has been determined of less value than the need to defend certain WP articles from racially undesirable editors; editors, like myself, who are genetically incapable of making NPOV contributions. DocumentError (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Delta Psi (University of Vermont)

The article Delta Psi (University of Vermont) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Delta Psi (University of Vermont) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello good day.

Hello, I will like to request a profile for a popular Poet and Professor with over 3000 poems in soft and hard copies. Her name is Valsa George.

Best regards Ovi Odiete... .. Oviodiete (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Oviodiete: This user is obviously away. Do you have any WP:reliable sources for requested article? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Oviodiete. I would love to help, however, I have been indefinitely blocked by PBS. DocumentError (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

“"take no prisoners" editor”...?

Hello. In this November 2014 ANI discussion, you added 27Nov2014,09:42 – just below 24Nov19:17(Legacypac) – a comment which included the expression “"take no prisoners" editor”. Of most of your other comments in that discussion I have some idea of what you might be referring to (though ofcourse I’m not in the position to verify or judge them all), but of this one I have no idea. Would you please tell me what you were alluding or referring to? I recently ran into another conflict with Legacypac, so perhaps it is useful to know what you were hinting at, in Nov 2014. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)