User talk:Ekren

July 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Calmer Waters 04:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to add fake block templates to make a point by adding a user's signature (which you have already been warned against changing or altering other user's comments), then I will add a real one. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry I accidentally added a block template in my talk page. I am not disrupting Wikipedia. Next time I will not cheat onadding block templates. It is just a test block and does not have transparency to the blocking policy. Adjkasi (T

Accept reason:

I want ahead and removed the block from your account. I do think that you have some issues in regards to some of your recent contributions that need to be addressed; however, the block was placed due to the appearance that you were attempting to make it appear that Materialscientist had blocked you. Calmer Waters 08:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I use TW again to revert 50 edits of possible vandalism?

{{admin help}} Should I use TW again to revert 50 edits of possible vandalism, or request for a rollback feature again to restore it? Adjkasi (T | C | L) 09:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither. Your request for rollback was declined by an administrator only hours ago with the advice that "you need to stay away from any semi-automated tools until you learn to communicate with those who may bring up potential problems with said edits." Do any vandalism-reverting manually for a time, taking it slowly and making sure you get it right. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How long should I staw away from rollback?

How long should I staw away from rollback?

Until you have demonstrated that you understand what you are doing, and are capable of doing such things as reverting vandalism without a high number of mistakes. Judging from what I have seen of your editing, with numerous inappropriate warnings, unsuitable speedy deletion nominations, reverting of legitimate removal of user talk page content by the users, changing other people's talk page comments, and so on, you have a lot to learn, and you should give yourself plenty of time to do so. You certainly need to wait until you find you are no longer getting frequent talk page messages about problems, and your edits are not frequently being reverted by more experienced editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

We see that you need a little more understanding of Counter-Vandalism before you're granted Rollback. The Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy exists to help users, like yourself, understand the way to identify and handle Vandalism through one-on-one instruction. Perhaps you'd like to ask a question of our instructors, or perhaps Enroll in the Academy. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When should I have the rollback rights again?

When should I have the rollback rights again? Ekren (T | C | L) 09:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ekren. I see that you've been given some good advice about this above. I would recommend you work on reverting the "old-fashioned way" for a couple of months before requesting rollback again. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk)

14:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) {{Admin help}}

But Nikkimaria, I must have the rollback rights before I fly to the United States. I will fly to Howell, Michigan by 3 August 2012. Ekren (T | C | L) 06:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "must" about it - you will get rollback rights only when administrators are convinced, on the basis of a substantial record of trouble-free anti-vandalism work, that you can be trusted with them. Read JamesBWatson's advice above. This page history, where only this morning you edit-warred to restore a BLP-prod to an article which clearly states that its subject died in 1914 and so is not a living person, does not suggest that you are nearly ready. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your WP:BITE MfD nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RevMegatherion

User:RevMegatherion's first post (his user page) was 11:53, 4 July 2012‎.[1] Admin Calmer Waters unblocked your account 08:39, 1 July 2012 after assuming your disruptive editting was an accident,[2] and then you listed User:RevMegatherion's page for deletion at 09:52, 5 July 2012.[3] at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RevMegatherion. How do you think RevMegatherion will feel after he sees his very first Wikipedia post listed for deletion almost just after he made it? Do you think this will make it more likely or less likely that he will continue with Wikipedia? What did he say in response to your request to alter his user page to be more in line with Wikipedia:User pages? Whether it is intentional or done with a disregard for the consequences, nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. See WP:BITE. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Portal

Perhaps it would be wiser to wait until Template:Ports is merged into Template:Portal to convert invocations of former to the later. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request of multiple pages

{{admin help}} The pages Filip Nguyen and Trần Bửu Ngọc must be deleted because:
Expired BLPPROD: There are still no references present on this BLP. Ekren (T | C | L) 07:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but you don't need to raise an "adminhelp" for expired PRODs and BLP-prods - a bot puts them in a list at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary and admins check that list when they have any time to spare. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Max Bartel

Max Bartel died in 1914 and the stub article is referenced so I removed the template. Cheers Notafly (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

LambdaGamma

Mind explaining why you reverted and warned LambdaGamma (talk · contribs) for this edit? He claims it wasn't vandalism on his talk page, and I'm inclined to believe him. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake

I removed obvious vandalism, and you revert my edit as vandalism?! Please be more careful with your use of Twinkle and do a self-revert, or I will revert it again. Thank you. 212.10.89.139 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your revert to Ammonium nitrate

Hi regarding your revert to Ammonium nitrate, you reverted to a version of the page which had also been vandalised. When reverting please ensure that you revert to a clean version of the page. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Request for Rollback

Hi! I am not an Administrator, but I was allowed to close your Request for Rollback as not done, as 2 sysops told you this week to stay away from rollback and semi-automated tools for a while. Please do not be discouraged, as getting rollback is really not a big deal. I have rollback and reviewer rights here, and other than a few extra buttons, it's really nothing. If you really want to get rollback despite this, than it is encouraged that you learn more about how to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I recommend enrolling in the CVUA. No, we cannot promise that you will get rollback after completion, but if you are really interested in fighting vandalism here, we can help you out. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC).

This is Section Blanking, not Vandalism

This Here is not Vandalism. This is Section Blanking. If it is not Vandalism, Do not Tag it as such.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 22:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop using Twinkle

Within the last few days, several admins have advised you to "stay away from any semi-automated tools until you learn to communicate with those who may bring up potential problems with said edits," do any vandalism-reverting manually for a time, work slowly and make sure you get it right. But you are still using Twinkle, working fast, and making mistakes: just above on this page I see three objections to your Twinkle edits timed at 13:44, 13:46 and 13:49, and in no case have you replied, apologised or explained. The more you go on like this, the further off goes any possibility of being granted rollback: you are more likely to be told to stop anti-vandal work.

This is an instruction not to use Twinkle again, or any semi-automated tool, for two weeks - i.e. before 21 July. Work manually, take it slow, get it right, and if there are objections to your edits answer them and explain or apologise. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disobeying a clear instruction to stop using Twinkle for two weeks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have got to start listening to advice. Reverting vandalism is good, but only if done accurately. One of the first things I see this morning is a childish autobiographical page, Drake Jenkins, wrongly tagged as an attack. This was not vandalism, which is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." And so on. During your block, please read WP:Vandalism carefully, especially the section "What is not vandalism", and after it stay away from semi-automated tools such as Twinkle until 21 July. I advise you to take up the offer from the CVUA further up this page; your keenness to combat vandalism is commendable, and it may be that a bit of supervision from an experienced instructor is all you need to get you on the right track. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The block has been restored, this time for a week, as you have completely ignored what you were told. When the block expires please do not continue in the same way, or you may be blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Christendom3

What was this only warning for vandalism for? The editor had some WP:CIR issues in the past (all discussed on talk page) but hasn't done recently to merit such a warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop Using Twinkle!

You have been repeatedly warned about using Twinkle!. You need to stop, or You will be Blocked for longer.--Anderson9990 - what's up? 22:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for for disobeying a clear instruction to stop using Twinkle for two weeks.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Anderson9990 - what's up? 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are really interested in reverting vandalism, I'd be happy to adopt you. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Abhay Gupta12, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned about this more than once before, and if I had noticed this before I imposed the above-mentioned block, I might well have blocked you for longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)