User:KieferSkunk/Zicraccozian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following is a COPY of a blocked user's talk page, which has since been deleted. I am preserving it here as an example of how NOT to contest a permanent block. This is linked from my Funny Vandalism Log.
The original source page for this was User talk:Zicraccozian .

Welcome!

Hello, Zicraccozian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! AmaltheaTalk 01:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I Am… (Beyoncé Knowles album)[edit]

Hi
If you have *any* halfway reliable source for those tracks please add it to the talk page of the article so that we can discuss how to incorporate it. If no one can give any source at all though then we needn't discuss adding it to the article, per one of the most basic policies at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Wee need to be very careful not to propage rumors now that Wikipedia has become a news source for many blogs and other unreliable news organizations.
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 01:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that's not the point. We are not a rumor mill, we try to build an encyclopaedia. If the rumor can be verified by reliable sources, as I said per one of the most basic policies at WP:VERIFIABILITY, we can think about how to incorporate it into the article. Unless we have any such source though it must not remain in the article. Earlier today I elaborated quite a bit on a similar topic, at Talk:Degenatron. Imagine if we allowed people to add all kinds of rumors to articles, without giving reliable sources.
I hope that clarifies my edit. I will remove the rumors again, per the policies I just gave you. If you still disagree, I urge you to go to the talk page of the article and strike up a discussion with other editors. Please trust me when I say that this issue is based on fundamental policy, and all other established editors will have the same opinion.
Thanks for your response, and Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 02:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve that? Care to explain? --AmaltheaTalk 11:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The user in question wil not be able to explain, as he has been indefinitely blocked after a heap of vandalism in his career of just over a day on Wikipedia. See #Blocked. David Biddulph (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He should still be able to edit his talk page if I'm not mistaken. --AmaltheaTalk 11:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course you must be right, or there wouldn't be a way of appealing against a block, would there? I'll go back to sleep.  :-) David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

who is this punk? you should just get out of my business

Nicolò Giraud[edit]

Also, please don't remove notices about previous deletion discussions from articles, as you did with this edit. This will in fact only make it more likely that it is again nominated for deletion, and in no way a criticism of the topic. Thanks. --AmaltheaTalk 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Images[edit]

Hi.
Well, I don't, but you might be interested in the WikiProject Images and Media and say hello at the talk page, or talk to User:Jauerback, one of the participants there who seems to be active these days. I've never looked at what they do exaclty, but I'm sure he can give you better input.
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hook Me Up[edit]

About the reverting of edits regarding the, Hook Me Up article, I had placed citation taggs on the information that was unsourced on September 15 [1] and October 10 [2] and no one sourced the information so I removed it. Regarding the "digital cover" of the album, i googled this but nothing came up about it being the "digital cover", I also checked U.S. and Australian iTunes but they all just had the same cover of the original release. Lillygirl (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fortran, you will be blocked from editing. David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy-delete declined on Fortran[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I've declined your speedy-delete nomination on the Fortran article, as the article is notable, well-sourced, and well-written (if overly technical). Please take a moment to review the criteria for speedy deletion to make sure that future speedy-delete nominations are appropriate. Thanks.

Just out of curiosity, why did you request speedy-deletion of that article? Was it just that it was overly technical? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Urination has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Possum (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Information.png The recent edit you made to User talk:Possum constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. — Possum (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Yoyowall22. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Placing random speedy-delete requests on pages where it is inappropriate to do so, in addition to the inappropriate edits you are making to other pages, shows a pattern of vandalism. This is highly disruptive.KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

KieferSkunk (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

your block was unjustified and really just childish. Just get of my back KieferSkunk.

Decline reason:

Constant vandalism and personal attacks to not warrent an unblock, especially with that unblock reason. — Xclamation point 03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

KieferSkunk (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

do you know how many people us this account? This is a CLASS. I have made it very clear to the student who was making the random Template:Db- nonsense and , etc. tags that they MUST use the sandbox for testing. Still, with a class of 30 freshmen, it is hard to monitor them all. I do my best, but I can't control everything that they do or type on Wikipedia. At least unblock the IP so we can make individual accounts, which was already the next step in the curriculum. My class is Computer Skills and Basic Code. Wikipedia's code format is easy and great for beginners. I hope you put much thought into my request. Sincerely, Professor James Donald

Decline reason:

In that case students should open their own accounts. We do not permit role accounts. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I did not know that, but now I can see very clearly why such a rule would be implemented. I you would only unblock this IP then I will get right on deleting Zicraccozian and have my students create their own accounts, which will be named very obviously. Mine would be, oh, CSBC1, and the student's would be CSBS2, CSBC3, ETC.

First, we'll need to verify that you are really the teacher of a university class. Feel free to email me from your official school email, so I can verify that you're a professor at your college. Then we can work on how your students can create their own individual (not identically-named) accounts themselves. Why would you want to do their computer work for them, when you're teaching them computer skills, right? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you see above, they ALL know the password. It is not a university, but a small night class that I started myself to help my local Hispanic community.

So, not at a community college, as you said in this edit? It's odd, you forgetting where you teach. And just when I was noticing that google didn't show any Professor James Donald associated with Boulder, Colorado. How odd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

night class, community college, call it what you want, but I teach out of my home and I try to do what i can for whoever I can. I am not a "professor" per say, but that is what they call me so that's what I go by.I teach mainly the large Hispanic community in boulder and Colorado in general.I try to keep them away from the gangs (Latin Kings, Nortenos, MS 13) centered around Longmont and Denver. I have an open door policy, they can come in whenever they need if they have questions.

So, to sum up: You call yourself "professor," though in fact you are not one. You are teaching a class of thirty computer students (which implies thirty computers, and space for thirty students to use them) in your home. These students are not enrolled in school, and come and go as they please, but you still call them 'freshmen.' And it's a 'night class' which you teach by having these thirty almost-criminals wander in and out of your home at all hours of the day and night, unmonitored. I don't think I'm going to be able to help with an unblock, since it sounds like you won't be able to prevent your students from vandalizing Wikipedia, or, indeed, from stealing and pawning your thirty computers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

you don't know them. They live and were raised in a bad community. I am trying t break the cycle of poverty and gang membership. I have four "grades", the forst being freshmen, I bet you can guess the rest. I am a retired chemical engineer and part time computer connoisseur. I have owned MANY, MANY computers over the years, and I have managed to refurbish about thirty of them, many with old OS's but still in (pathetic) working order. I started by teaching them how to write more accurate English, and basic typing. my hope is that their computer skills, if minimal, will help them break the minimum wage cycle of poverty. Many of them have young children and it pains me to see them born with so few opportunities. I want to help them by helping their parents.

I didn't intend to disparage your students. It's simply that I'm afraid I don't believe you. I'm sorry, but there are just too many contradictions in this story, and it has changed too many times. I'm sure you can understand why my own theory, which is that you are another of the thousands of vandals who make up a story to try to get unblocked, seems more plausible to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

it all fits. Please, consider this carefully. I will delete this account and set up individual ones for them, or just not ave them use wikipedia, but taht wouldn't be very helpful for them since Wikipedia code is a great building block. I have already made it very clear that they shouldn't edit articles, but instead use the sandbox.

I suggest that you teach them HTML instead. Its basics are just as easy as wiki markup, and it has a much wider variety of uses. They could even make their own web pages with it, which should be much more fun and instructional for them than editing an encyclopedia. Trust me, they'll love it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

that is a great idea. one thing though. do you believe me?

No, I don't. But if you're telling the truth, it's still pretty good advice. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC

Do you remember the Ockenbock sockpuppetry scandal?

No, I missed that one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

click the link. See all of his puppets. If you unban me, i will tell you his new account. he is a friend of mine who, unfortunately, loves vandalizing wikipedia. this time tho, he is going undercover as a legit user, because he is tryig to gain adminship.

No, thanks. I don't care that much. If he's editing appropriately and usefully, he's welcome as far as I'm concerned, and there's no need to go hunting for him if he isn't causing any disruptions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

his plan is to become admin then delete every other admin. All I need is one little unblock. This guy only means troble for wikipedia

Well, once he starts deleting administrators, we'll know who he is, and block him right away. No need for you to get involved at all. And we'll trick him- we'll get years of work from him improving the encyclopedia, which is good for Wikipedia, and he'll only manage to cause a few minutes' worth of disruption before he's blocked. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

was that sarcasm?

Not at all. The main goal is what's good for the encyclopedia. If he's willing to write a few featured articles for us, I'm glad to have him around- we can always block him when he starts causing trouble, after he does the hard, useful work for the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

oh come on just unblock me

{unblock|this is a PUBLIC server}}

If you are making further unblock requests, you need to leave the previous requests and discussions up for reviewing admins to see. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's enough fun for tonight, don't you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the above conversation is pretty amazing. I think I'm going to grab a snapshot of this and put it up in my "Funny Vandalism" section. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)