User talk:Yettaw

Welcome[edit]

Welcome...

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Linguisticgeek

Again, welcome! LinguisticGeek 06:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Dalton Trumbo 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. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Moves[edit]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

A preferable name to '9/11' and similar US-centric terms is 'Operation Holy Tuesday' or 'Holy Tuesday Operation'. It is the acknowledged name by the planners and active participant perpetrator-commissioners of the events. Refer to ://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,271523,00.html Unblock & withdrawal of allegations of vandalism on this matter requested.

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yettaw (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock because blocking is a last resort remedy to actual vandalism and there is no aspect of vandalism in giving due prominence to the operational name of the HTO/OHT including in article content and article naming. While views may differ about the degree of prominence, none should be silenced for daring to bring the issue into the open for consideration as I have.

Decline reason:

You made a number of disruptive edits and page moves and have provided no assurance that you will not continue with this behavior if unblocked, therefore:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand and take awareness of the reasons asserted for the block. I request unblock and withdrawal of the allegations of disruption and vandalism. I undertake to express reasoning and justification for editing actions in the fashion of edit summaries and article talk page comment. Operation Holy Tuesday scholarship is a field of reporting that I am capable to supply referenced content to. The Operation's planning, purposes and achievements are causally linked to the current foreign military occupation of Afghanistan. Readers of this database will benefit from a breadth of information on those subject matters being exposed herein. For the sake of that benefit, do as commanded. Yettaw (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address, or convince us that you understand, why you are blocked. Acps110 above tells you why. Sandstein 07:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

my understanding is that the block was put on as a result of one person's expressed objection that an article naming should follow the outcome of a discussion at [1] ahead of the subject matter's actual operational and planning name, where such operational name had not even been brought into thar discussion for consideration. What's yours? Finding yourself able to concur, then unblock.

Decline reason:

These questions are decided by WP:Consensus, achieved by discussion on talk pages, not by unilateral decision - see WP:BRD. You were blocked because you renamed these articles against a consensus that the name should remain that which is generally used, and you will not be unblocked while you continue to maintain that everyone is out of step except you. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have now read WP:BRD, which states the opposite of what you propose as to whether talking is necessary to precede action on the databaseYettaw (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You moved a load of articles against consensus to a title you knew was provocative. That's vandalism and you;re wasting time with these requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]