User talk:85.70.5.66: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →

Revision as of 20:39, 19 August 2006 editCentrx (talk \| contribs)37,287 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit	Revision as of 05:10, 21 August 2006 edit undoCentrx (talk \| contribs)37,287 editsm Unprotected User talk:85.70.5.66Next edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 05:10, 21 August 2006

Welcome!

Hello, 85.70.5.66, 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:

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!

Just to re-iterate it is important that ou sign any of your message on talkpages with ~~~~ You can't expect people to take you serious if you don't. Agathoclea 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jonathunder

Is closing an ongoing survey on Talk:Caron repeatedly, even if editors are still voting. He has closed it first time on 21.13 today, then again on 23.31 , in these 2 hours, three votes were added. The user is disrupting the voting process, supposedly because he wants the result of the vote to stay as it is now. Thanks for any help.

Now he blocked me from editing wikipedia without giving me any reason.

85.70.5.66 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonathunder

I see your point now, I can however see no reason for the block. Stop closing the vote as it is actually still running, and even if the guideline says something, you can ignore it if you see it makes sense for wikipedia (i.e. I contacted the experts, linguists and they started voting). Moreover, the guideline is not a policy and you are disrupting the vote by unallowing people to participate in it, even if they would (4 new votes in last 3 hours - where is the sense in closing an ongoing vote?). You being an admin doesn't make me obey you if I believe you are disrupting the process of creating a consensus. I wanted to post you on the AN/I, but your block came across. 85.70.5.66 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't use {{helpme}} for blocks. Just wear the block, it's only 1 hour. And please get an account (after the block expires, or the autoblocker will intervene).--Commander Keane 23:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya, I'm never coming back. I just wanted to return to check the caron thing, but really, this is nauseating. 85.70.5.66 23:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Commander Keane, I am really sorry, but I don't want to wear any block (and according to WP policies, I shouldn't have to and you should help me) that was given for nonsense reason. Would you like to pay a fine anytime some policeman decides you just have to without any reason. Quote from WP:STRAW:

A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions. Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do. Instead, just give everybody a chance to chip in with a simple yes or no. Straw polls may trigger discussions instead—that's not a failure, it just means you know that the issue is not clear-cut, which is what you set out to determine in the first place.

The people are still voting, 4 votes in last 3 hours, and that one blocks me because he decided that it should be strictly one weak only. Theres not a word in the guideline about duration and the people are still voting, he is the one who is disrupting it. Someone stop him, I don't want to wear the block that was given for such a reason plus I don't want the vote to be disrupted. 85.70.5.66 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you have sought me out to help, but on wikipedia, it's never a good idea to recruit people to a straw poll....too many bad things have happened as a result of that in earlier polls. I would give a comment or two, although I believe that my lack of knowledge in diacritic names (or which ones are official and most frequently used, anyway) couldn't contribute much to the discussion. Looking over the poll, most of what I know has been discussed already, and restating things that have already been said only makes me appear uninformed and/or stubborn. Sorry I'm not of more help. By the way, I saw that you went on a hiatus after you recieved a slap on the wrist for recruiting votes. You shouldn't be so distraught because you made a mistake—everyone here has made at least a few, and while it may have been unnecessary to attack a newbie like yourself over such a thing, you shouldn't let it destroy your hope in editing. If you do create an account, tell me, and I'll be happy to help you get back on track.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I almost completely concur with the above statement. --vi 02:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Helpme req .2

The thing is, if you disagree with something you don't just scrub it out and demand that the poll be re-opened. You discuss on the talk page. Using your policeman analogy, if you get a fine you don't "deserve" you go to court and discuss, you don't tear up the fine, jump up and down and disrupt traffic by making a nuisance. Also, the reason for the block was apparent to me, forgetting to fill in the block log reason won't cause the world to end.

Anyway, the block is over now - forget about it (this includes using {helpme} on this matter). So the moral of the story is to discuss on talk pages, get an account and forget about this little issue - move on. Don't use {helpme} again. I have removed the {unblock}, the block has expired.--Commander Keane 05:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Sorry about my message before, I fear it was rather irrelevant as I didn't realise that you hadn't used the {helpme} (but in fact the page was reverted).

It's not really vandalism to blank a talk page, but ideally an archive will be kept. Because some vandals blank their talk page to deceive about the warnings they have received, there is a widespread misunderstanding that blanking a talk page is not allowed. I think the solution in place now, with a link to an archive, is ok.--Commander Keane 07:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I usually log in if I decide to contribute to an article (although I think I wouldn't do that anyway if admins are going to behave like that). There is no reason to indef block an IP adress if it is not used for vandalism or constant or extreme personal attacks. My two last contributions were "I concur." and "I second that". Is that why I was blocked? Moreover, there was no message left at my talk page, anything. 85.70.5.66 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are no actual contributions in the last month. All recent edits are snarky or attack comments. Based on user contributions and admitted IRC statements, this is the IP of a banned user. Related accounts: User:Azmoc and User:Ackoz. —Centrx→talk • 20:00, 19 August 2006 (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.