Jump to content

User talk:Chooserr: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Hi Chooserr: the block log
Line 283: Line 283:
::Kind regards,
::Kind regards,
::[[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
::[[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

:::It has been reported [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#One_week_block_for_disruption.2C_personal_attacks|here]], so it's likely that several adminitrators are aware of it. I will see if I can get it shortened, as I also think that one week is a little harsh. But, please, please, Chooserr, if you are unblocked, could you try not to be so confrontational. I can understand, for example, that if an article said that Holy Communion was just bread or that the fetus is just a clump of cells and isn't human or that there are no credible reasons against the ordination of women that you might feel obliged in conscience to keep fighting, at the risk of being blocked. (The articles ''don't'' say those things because there are some people on ''both'' sides who respect NPOV.) You didn't '''''have''''' to make that comment. I can't imagine that you thought God would be offended if you refrained from making it. You've been blocked so many times now that you must ''know'' you're asking for another block if you make those kind of remarks. And yes, I'm fully aware that people have said very rude things to you and have not been blocked for it. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:55, 27 December 2005

Seeing as others do it so will I. So here is my first archived talk page, but feel free to leave me a new one on this page :D


MAKEABORTIONHISTORY<font\>

You do realize that you're supposed to actually create an AfD page, right? They don't make themselves, sticking this {{AfD}}, without creating this, and without listing it on the articles for deletion page, will probably just look like vandalism--Aolanonawanabe 05:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lifebracelet.jpg

I answered your question at WP:AN/I as follows:

He is in the right. The question is not whether the bracelet is copyrighted but whether the image that you posted is copyrighted. I could take a picture of an orange. The orange isn't copyrighted, but the picture would be. If you don't provide source information for the image, we have to assume that it is copyrighted. FreplySpang (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: The image is copyrighted, as you yourself state; "The copyright was for 2001". However, copyright in images and text does not expire after one year, or even four; a 2001 copyright notice effectively means that the image is copyrighted for the best part of the coming century. Shimgray | talk | 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for deletion because we cannot use copyrighted images. FreplySpang (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like Shimgray said - if the source says "Copyright 2001" it means the copyright starts in 2001 and lasts for many years afterward. FreplySpang (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condom

I have reverted this edit of yours to Condom because you should not remove entire subsections from articles. If you believe that the section should go, please start a discussion at Talk:Condom. Thanks.--Sean|Black 07:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only following wikipedia policy... Bull. Or to use a phrase more regionally suited, complete bollocks. Citing of policy is a transparent excuse, as a quick examination of your edit history, user page, and citations on various admin pages show. NPOV is policy, not an obstacle for you to get around. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to side step any policy and I made the section about health as neutral as possible. Best laugh I've had all day. Besides, what makes you think I was saying anything about your scary-scary health section? --Calton | Talk 01:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Condomfactsforum.jpg

The lack of a copyright notice on an image does not mean the image is not copyrighted. All works are copyrighted unless they are explicitly released into the public domain. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest you please consider not uploading images that you personally do not own, or else learn a bit more about copyright and what uses are permissible before you upload images that you don't personally own. It simply creates more work for those of us who have to clean up and delete improperly sourced and licensed images. Regards, Nandesuka 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert vandalism, rather than marking vandalized articles for speedy deletion. Uncle G 03:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babel userboxes

Your Babel section gave me some inspiration to expand mine, yes, but I'm afraid it's gotten a bit out of hand ;) Aecis praatpaal 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heteropride

Oh yeah, a site whose name gets 238 Google hits. Very reliable, very noteworthy.

From About.com Q. Why is there no straight pride?"" From Kathy Belge, Your Guide to Lesbian Life.

A. Straight is the norm. The majority of the population is straight, or heterosexual. People who are straight are not put down or the brunt of jokes. They are not discriminated against for being straight. They do not have laws in place to make their relationships illegal. Most straight people never give being heterosexual a second thought. That is why there are no straight pride parades.

Tell me, is English your second language? You seem to have trouble with usage.

--Calton | Talk 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...that's why I clearly stated... Guy, you could have clearly stated "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" for all the sense you made. I'm referring to, among other things, your tin ear for how language and phrases are used by subcultures to describe themselves and their relationship to the dominant culture. There is no "white community" (except in the minds of compound-dwelling yahoos in the wilds of Idaho), no "masculine community", no "right-handers community", no "secular community". It's why Mundane is related.

I could also throw in your peculiar, Humpty-Dumpty-esque use of the word "protecting". Watch out! Elton John is coming to destroy your marriage! --Calton | Talk 02:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Movement

What does this one think of the movement? --Kin Khan 02:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using {{subst:Chooserrwelcome}} instead of {{Chooserrwelcome}}, in order to reduce the load on the servers?--Aolanonawanabe 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this template into your user space. The template namespace (that is, templates whose names start with "Template:") is intended for templates that are useful to many people. This template is really only useful to you. If you move it to User:Chooserr/welcome, you can use it just like any other template, by typing {{User:Chooserr/welcome}} or {{subst:User:Chooser/welcome}}. (Aolanon's suggestion to "subst" it is a good idea.) FreplySpang (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I don't think this trollish nonsense is what FreplySpang had in mind--Aolanonawanabe 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, it's not. Both of you, calm down. Chooserr, stop making personal attacks against Aolanonawanabe. Aolanonawanabe, try not to provoke Chooserr. FreplySpang (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Civility and No personal attacks are two of the key principles of Wikipedia participation. You have been editing controversial articles, so you are likely to get into heated discussions. If you can't participate without insults and abuse then please wait until you are calmer before you edit. Other people's bad behavior does not justify yours. FreplySpang (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Explicit Images (Re: Might You Help Again?)

Well, first off I would like to say You Are Welcome. The next thing I would like to ask of you before I can do any further is, where is the birth control article located (or my comment on the pic, rather) so I can see what exactly I posted regarding it. It would be of great importance if you told me this, because I do a many things on Wikipedia regarding censorship, but the so-called 'NPOV' policy also prevents me from reaching my full potential. Please also give me the direct links to these other explicit images so I can comment on them, for I'd rather not look at the images without...well, being 'prepared' in a sense. I shall work from there. Any other things I could do to offer my assistance to you? Thank you. Эйрон Кинни 05:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rested my case on its talk page, thank you. Эйрон Кинни 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following me around and reverting my edits

That's fine and all, but since most of what I do is revert vandalism, reverting that, might be considered, you know.. the opposite of reverting vandalism--Aolanonawanabe 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please get a life

There is no way that I'm edit warring with you over a cow, please go away--Aolanonawanabe 07:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chooserr,

There's nothing about the image that says it's not allowed, it's just that it's not GFDL. If you believe that you can use it fairly, even though it's copyrighted (which it is), you should apply a {{fairusein}} tag to it. The images you complain about have been slapped with similar tags. The main concern with this is that there are many "GFDL" ways to get it (such as by buying it and taking the photo yourself, like I mentioned earlier), so using a copyrighted image like this one is probably unnecessary. If Wikipedia ever gets published in a v1.0 form, all copyrighted images will be removed to prevent possible legal problems. Since this image was taken by a company (and subsequently copyrighted), there can be problems related to this. I know a couple of graphic designers that spend a fair bit of time legally pursuing people or organisations that use their graphics without authorisation, so this is a slippery slope to take on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chooserr, I've been keeping abreast of that image, and everyone else has great points: this image doesn't add significant content to other articles, and indeed, images like this will almost certainly be removed because it's so much easier to make a copyright-free image than to get a copyrighted one off the web. I'd really suggest you take your own picture of this bracelet (I assume you have one). --Deathphoenix 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers fair use

You asked, "Why is it I wonder that book covers are free use no matter who takes picture and yet my bracelet isn't?" Well, it's because book covers aren't free to use. To quote Template:Bookcover, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate the book in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information." FreplySpang (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chooserr

Just read your comment on the Talk:Condom page. I think your addition of the American Cancer Society link is valid.

As an aside, I've noticed that you seem to have a polarizing effect on Wikipedia. As one editor to another, I think it may be prudent to make edits with less religious overtones, and avoid rallying. As a pharmacy student, I have no problem with your edits as long as they are evidence-based, not overstated, and not against scientific consensus.

Best editing, Uthbrian (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

article titles

When you create a new article, please follow the Wikipedia naming conventions by capitalizing only the first word. So, it should be Straight community instead of Straight Community and Parental notification instead of Parental Notification. (I am not endorsing either article here, just using them as examples.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talc, Silicon - Carcinogen?

Hi Chooserr, here's what I've found on talcum powder [1]. Basically, it looks like talc was previously linked to cancer because it had asbestos in it. This was before 1973-- nowadays, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has required talcum powders to be asbestos-free.

Overall, the report seemed to indicate that the studies on talc and silica are inconclusive in determining their carcinogenicity.

--Uthbrian (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms

Good point. I've added this sentence: "Additionally, the absence of visible lesions or symptoms cannot be used to decide whether caution is needed." Essentially from the American Cancer Society website, but generalized to all diseases with genital ulcers, instead of just HPV. Uthbrian (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to honestly say I'm not inclined to include it as an "External link" because the article's main focus is on "Can Penile Cancer Be Prevented?". --Uthbrian (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chooserr, benzene is definitely a carcinogen. However, I could not find any unbiased evidence that benzene is present on condoms. I'm sure if a study was done and benzene was detected in any toxic doses, the FDA would take action immediately to protect the public. --Uthbrian (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chooserr, I saw your Benzene edits and removed them because I felt they were strongly biased. If you can find me an official link to a information source from the government (NIH, CDC, USDA, FDA) or a credible health agency (such as the American Cancer Society) which states that "benzene was found at toxic levels on condoms" (or something to that regard), I will definitely consider letting it stand. I usually check PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed as a good starting point. However, I couldn't find anything searching with the terms "benzene condom". I am reverting the article for now. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be information directly from the FDA, etc. website/domain. Otherwise, anyone can claim that "FDA has said..." and they could be lying about exactly what the FDA stated. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You're doing an excellent job learning, Chooserr! I didn't notice any abstracts pertaining to condoms in the 41 items listed under "contraceptive benzene", but you're catching onto good references/sources to use in defending your edits. It is definitely hard to understand some of the material you may find there, but that's what Wikipedia is good for... finding understandable info on difficult-to-understand ideas.

I'd like to offer a note of caution: sometimes you may find one abstract which may be useful, but many others go against it. If you do decided to post up the "lone voice" abstract, I would add a qualifying statement saying that "many others go against this lone study" or something to that effect. Additionally, some studies may be erroneous due to poor study design; however, you have to learn much about statistics and study design to find these errors.

Basically, scientific studies are difficult to perform, and may be limited in their scope of application. You have to be careful not to over-generalize, etc.

I'm glad to introduce you to mainstream science, though! --Uthbrian (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Wikipedians

I see the category page has you listed under "U". You might want to edit the category link and change it to [[Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians|Chooserr]] so it sorts properly.

Alternately, you could add the "rc" userbox, as I did, which does this automatically.--SarekOfVulcan 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Alliance

Do you think it would be a good idea to start a Catholic Alliance in wikipedia? We could gather votes to defend pro-life articles and similar items. --Shanedidona 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Chooserr! Hope it's a wonderful one! (happy New Year, too!)--ViolinGirl 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Braw

You used the word braw on my discussion page. What does it mean? I live in the USA, so I might not know Scottish slang words. --Shanedidona 16:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAoW

I think it would be a good idea for you to join the Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, which is a pro-life group. --Shanedidona 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic

Fine.. but what's the real difference between these two categories? Jfreyre 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAoW

Sorry to double-post... but anyway: Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have our differences...

...but that shouldn't stand in the way of you having a Merry Christmas. God bless you.--SarekOfVulcan 05:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" unencyclopedic?

Chooserr, how do you figure that the word "alleged" is unencyclopedic? What better word for something that one group of people claims exists, while another group claims that it doesn't? If we don't call it alleged, aren't we suggesting that the group that says it exists is right? (This is in reference to War on Christmas, by the way, and Merry Christmas, by the way.) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word Alleged isn't unecyclopedic. It was its usage. "Alleged Specific". It sounds startlingly like an Oxymoron. Chooserr 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "alleged specific" is no good; true. What about "specific allegations", seeing as that's what they are, and some of them (i.e., Plano schools) are manifestly NOT instances of secularization, seeing as they never happened, although the allegation did? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored some of your edits. Any revisions were because they got caught up in my edits while under the inuse flag, not because I dsiagree--Tznkai 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait 2minutes for me to finish up and you can check what still needs to be done--Tznkai 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms

NP: It looks like good information. I'd just like to see it in a place where the people who could use it are most likely to find it. Happy holidays, Durova 00:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diaphragm (contraceptive)

I see you reintroducted the sentance on increased risk of urinary tract infections plus the reference itself, after I had merged this into the first sentance of the 'Risks' section. I had in my comment on the edit indicated why I thought cystitis was probably more accurate than the less-specific urinary tract infection. I try not to revert edits within 24hrs (let alone go near the 3 revert issue), so I'ld appreciate your thoughts.

  • Is the problem that of 'cystitis' being a technical term that needs clarification, eg as 'cystitis (a form of urinary tract infection)', but this seems excessive when people can follow the 'cystitis' link for any clarrification needed.
  • Is it that the cystitis article fails to make clear that the vast majority of cases are bacterial and the link to bacterial cystitis is in fact to the urinary tract infection page, which in turn is has less about bladder infection than kidney infection pyelonephritis ?

I agree the pages lack perhaps some clarrity and have circular linkage. Whilst as a doctor I have some initial thoughts on changing the tone in these articles, Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, so your comments gratefully sought. davidruben 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas from Ann

Hi, Chooserr. I just want to wish you a Happy Christmas, and to say that I hope Wikipedia becomes a little more friendly towards you in the New Year. I don't think you've always gone about editing in the wisest way, but I feel that some people here certainly violated WP:BITE where you were concerned. Could I suggest that in the New Year, you try not to fight so hard for things that don't matter so much. This may surprise you, but there are a few Christian, pro-life editors here who have gained respect from people of opposing POVs without ever violating their own consciences. Happy Christmas, anyway! AnnH (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giving barnstars to hit and run vandals

DECEMBER 25TH is not for ANYTHING BUT JESUS CHRIST! SAY IT WITH ME: CHRIST-MAS!!!!!!

Wow, that was a Great Contribution!!! That's why I'm awarding you the original Barnstar. Chooserr 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I know that was a vandal, but as you said it was a "hit & run vandal". Why would it matter then if I express my personal opinion and award him a barnstar? I will not repent for my edit for it is heart felt. Chooserr 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and it looks like you are a vandal too...Chooserr 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As they say in the movies, "ooh behave". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopædia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article mightn't find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. OK?

--205.188.116.12 02:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kilogram

The edit that you made to Kilogram wasn't really expressed very well and is already covered in the "Link with weight" section. -- Curps 04:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms

Thanks for the message. I'm sorry I undid your work and necessitated a revert from you. Careless, sorry. Should call it a day ;-) James James 05:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay! I didn't feel I had been bitten. Slobbered on a bit maybe ;-) Happy festivities to you. James James 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tag removal

Chooserr, hi.

I just reverted your removal of the AfD tag from Turtle racing. Although the article will just about certainly be kept, it messes up the process to just remove the tag prematurely. There's a whole process that involves closing the AfD, not just removing that tag, and if you're not familiar with the whole process, you end up making it a mess for the person who does deal with it according to proper procedures. Don't worry, Turtle racing won't be deleted, but please don't remove the tag without following procedures. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Guide to Articles for deletion#Closure. An admin will be around soon, and close the discussion. Since there wasn't consensus for deletion, the article is safe. How soon the AfD gets closed depends on how soon some administrator gets around to it - as a recently promoted admin, I could probably do it, but I haven't closed any AfD's yet, as I want to be sure I know how to do it right first. I'll see whether I can't figure something out about this one... -GTBacchus(talk) 07:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. Whenever you need administrator help; feel free to tug on my sleeve, by the way. If I'm online, I'll be glad to assist with whatever it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illegality of condoms

Since I started the section, I was wondering if you might help in its expansion? I think it would be a valuable addition, but don't think I could do this all on my own because so many countries allow condoms and other forms of birth control. Chooserr 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not something I'll be expanding.--SarekOfVulcan 08:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair block

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Chooserr (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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.
Administrator use only:

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I hope whoever blocked me is watching my talk page. It was unfair. I was blocked for a "personal attack" which was simply stating my POV on a users talk page. I didn't cuss, swear, curse, use profanity, or do the above under any differen't name. I simply said "From what I can see of your user page you hardly qualify as a devout Catholic." I would like there for to be unblocked immediately, and as an aside I've had worse things said to me - Including Calton's "Elton John is coming to destroy your marraige" above. This is unacceptable. Chooserr 23:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One week block

I have blocked you for a week for disruption, specifically regarding your absolutely beyond the pale comment on User_talk:Endomion. Editors do not contribute to Wikipedia only to have a total stranger insult them or the way they practice their religion. Nandesuka 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

It was a simple opinion, she is entitle to disagree with me and/or respond but a blocking is uncalled for. I didn't swear at all. And I believe I was calm - please block Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused along with calton for their insults against me if my comment warrants blocking. Chooserr 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One week

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Chooserr (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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.
Administrator use only:

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I believe that you are in the process of warring a campaign against me - I don't deserve a week for this. It wasn't even a personal attack! It was a simple statement that I made. I wasn't profain. She has a right to respond, but you haven't a right to follow me about and block me for making comment. Chooserr 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNFAIR

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Chooserr (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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.
Administrator use only:

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Nandesuka, I must say that I wasn't throwing my weight around, and my comment wasn't in response to her vote. I wasn't browbeating and no other editor was invovled in my decision to make that comment. But the comment wasn't a personal attack, it was a simple statement. I shouldn't be blocked for expressing a POV on a talk page. As for you starting a One week block section where I haven't the opertunity to reply that is not only rude but not a proper debate. Chooserr 00:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plural Problem

Wow it is clear that you, Nandesuka, are biased. You use pharses like "browbeat editors". I haven't browbeaten one, let alone 2 or more editors. Maybe you should do some research before blocking me. Chooserr 00:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you patrol my talk and debate?

Well that's about it.

WP:NPA

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Chooserr (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

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.
Administrator use only:

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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |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=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Okay I'll try another avenue Nandesuka what makes my comment a personal attack - you can check the WP:NPA section for there happens to be a list of what'd qualify. Also why may I ask is it that I get block. Even if it were a personal attack, which I adamently protest it isn't, it would be my first meaning that the appropriate action would be the removal of the comment not a block. "For repeated personal attacks" is the reasoning for a block. Awaiting your reply, Chooserr 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka can you please define how it was a personal attack. Chooserr 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Chooserr

Oh dear... a week? Even though it wasn't a very nice comment, that seems a little harsh... Lemme look into this a little more... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believed it [my comment] accurate, and not an a personal attack. I don't think I should be blocked at all, and it seems wrong that people who have a clear bias against me can block me. She can't even define why I should be blocked, or what category of "Personal Attack" it falls under. Please can you unblock me. Thanks, Chooserr 00:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of GTBacchus, and to give Chooserr a chance to respond, I'll repeat my comment here.
I see that you're looking in to the latest Chooserr block, so I'll take the initiative and drop you a line. I think that Chooserr's block log makes for very interesting reading. Basically, since User:Chooserr has arrived, he has engaged in disruptive behavior nearly everywhere he has gone. Compared to that, I'd like you to consider the thousands upon thousands of people who manage to be constructive, frequently contributing editors and who manage not to run afoul of nearly every policy we have. He has had a huge number of second chances here, and he consistently manages to find a new boundary of civility and disruption to push. To top it off, after this block was in in place, he claimed to not understand how "I don't think you are practicing your religion correctly" (I paraphrase) is offensive. He is clearly trolling, and I urge you to seriously consider the message you will be sending if you reduce or lift this, his seventh block in a month.
Kind regards,
Nandesuka 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reported here, so it's likely that several adminitrators are aware of it. I will see if I can get it shortened, as I also think that one week is a little harsh. But, please, please, Chooserr, if you are unblocked, could you try not to be so confrontational. I can understand, for example, that if an article said that Holy Communion was just bread or that the fetus is just a clump of cells and isn't human or that there are no credible reasons against the ordination of women that you might feel obliged in conscience to keep fighting, at the risk of being blocked. (The articles don't say those things because there are some people on both sides who respect NPOV.) You didn't have to make that comment. I can't imagine that you thought God would be offended if you refrained from making it. You've been blocked so many times now that you must know you're asking for another block if you make those kind of remarks. And yes, I'm fully aware that people have said very rude things to you and have not been blocked for it. AnnH (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]