User talk:Bull-Doser: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:12, 18 November 2012

Banned

I hope to be unbanned, and I will never do original research on Wikipedia ever again. If I would do sources, I would photograph it or find an Internet source. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I will never do original research on Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please set me an unban date on November 1??? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I will do on Wikipedia is just edit articles with their own sources and of course pictures that belong to their respective pages. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too little too late for that. Since 2006, editors (including some no longer active on Wikipedia) have asked you, sometimes even begging you, to stop your disruptive editing and you have ignored them all. When you were blocked in December 2011, you've said that you would always provide sources; that commitment was never respected. You've even managed to boycott the thread that was about you this week on the Administrators Noticeboard of Incidents even after an administrator urged you to participate. Now that you have been blocked and banned, you're telling us that you want to collaborate, using the same type of promise that you used the last time you were blocked ????????

I wish you well in your future endeavors. Farine (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I create a new account and end up discontinuing this account? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should unblock me on November 3 instead. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will still collaborate, but no longer doing original research. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop doing disruptive editing to Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to focus more on car articles, still for editing, as well as company articles. I will always respect Wikipedia for the dimensions. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unbanned has been brought up on the WP:ANI page. Please give the editors who participated in the discussion time to respond (some will most likely come here to discuss this with you). After a decision is reached I or another administrator will inform you of the outcome. Thank you for your patience. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term misuse. 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban has been changed to a block... as this appears to be closer to the community's current consensus. However, you're unblock is still being discussed. And as I said above I'll inform you once a final decision has been made. Thank you for your patience. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Dozer, humor me if you will. Please explain what original research is in your own words, and what you intend to do if unblocked, to insure you do not insert it into articles in the future. I can't promise you anything, but I have a feeling that you are better off if you can articulate this in a way that will instill confidence in your future editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved new unblock request (apparently added on Nov 4 as a reply to Dennis) to a new section. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need Wikipedia yet, but I'll tell you later in the week. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get unblocked, you should explain how Wikipedia benefits from your editing, not the other way around; see "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" for inspiration

Tijfo098 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am ready to officially return to Wikipedia editing having been blocked for about nearly a week. I will not post anything on original research, just referenced, and also, I will continue posting my images once again. Bull-Doser (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I'm ready to return" is not a reason to unblock you. You will not be unblocked unless you answer Dennis Brown's questions, and address the block evasion concerns. Max Semenik (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2012 (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.

I have also started the Carrefour De La Pointe category yesterday on the List of small shopping centres in Montreal page. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the edit you made by evading your block with an IP address that User:Elen of the Roads finally blocked. [1]. Also Dennis Brown asked you a question. Therefore, you're supposed to correspond with Dennis Brown directly and he is watching your talk page. This unblock request is unlikely to be successful. Especially that there isn't anything particularly convincing in it that you will indeed stop disrupting Wikipedia and start communicating with the other editors. Farine (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farine, with respect, I recommend that you take a step away from this situation and let it be handled by uninvolved editors. Plenty of people have an eye on it now and are watching the situation carefully so issues like block evasion are not going to go unnoticed. Conversely, considering your history with BD your presence might be a hindrance to effective communication. Sædon^talk 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Bull-Doser has resolved editing as an unregistered user under the IP address 76.65.146.6. This is a very bad move.

A SPI case has been opened, a moderator will block the IP address once the case has been processed and Bull-Doser is putting himself in an even harder position to be readmitted to the community.

If Bull-Doser wants the possibility to edit again on Wikipedia, he should corresponds using his original Bull-Doser account. Block evasion is not the way to go . These alternative accounts and IP addresses will all be blocked. Farine (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.65.146.6 has no edits, and no deleted edits. The IP doesn't even appear to be in use on any machine, ie: reserved but not in use. The SPI page that would be used, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bull-Dozer is a red link so has never been opened, so what exactly are you talking about? You are making pretty strong accusations without substantiation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is 76.65.146.69 (not 76.65.146.6). My mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bull-Doser

And you don't need to get your attitude on me Dennis. I only forgot a number. That's all. Ever heard of WP:AGF? It's the second time this week that you're attempting to make me look like the bad guy and make Bull-Doser look like the victim.

As I said before, just unblock Bull-Doser if you feel his block is so unjustified. After all, all the people that you've accused of complaining on Bull-Doser's talk page for years were complaining just for the thrill of complaining. All these people (with no connection to each other) had no good reason whatsoever to complain on Bull-Doser's talk page.

And of course, you wouldn't have been able to access the SPI case. You spelled his name Bull-Dozer, when his name is Bull-Doser. Farine (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Bull-doser, just keeps on digging a hole for hisself. This whole affair is becoming rather tragicomic. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. But lucky for him, he has Dennis Brown on his side. Farine (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farine, I suggest you step away from this page and disengage with both Bull-Doser and Dennis Brown. Saedon has suggested the same (in the previous section on this page). If you continue, I will propose a formal interaction ban between you and Bull-Doser. Your behavior here has gone well beyond the bounds of discussion and has veered into hounding. There are several administrators actively watching this page (I am one of them), and we are aware of the situation; your presence is not helping. Horologium (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium, it's obvious by your response here as well as the one you left on my talk page earlier today that you don't like me and have a grudge against me. But very well, I will step away from this page. But Dennis Brown's answer above was inappropriate and I needed to let him know. Farine (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; I have no grudge against you. In fact, I had never encountered you prior to the discussion you started on ANI, and my interaction with you has been limited to our interaction here (and the note I dropped on your talk page, about edits to this page). It would take a lot more than that to develop a dislike for another editor. Horologium (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't edit while blocked

That means you can't edit from home as an IP, you can't go to your friend's house and edit from there, you can't go into an internet cafe and edit from there, you can't ask your sister to edit for you..... Do you get my drift. If you edit wikipedia again, without discussing the reasons for your block and seeing if you can get a resolution to your problem editing, you are likely to stay blocked forever. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New 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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked already and I am ready to return to editing. Original research is when you put words on your own thru Wikipedia with no references or sources. Also, I will never edit from an IP while blocked. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the SPI report, and your replies below, it doesn't appear you understand what the issue is, thus I have no choice but to refuse an unblock at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 4 November 2012 (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.

I'm definitely still not ready, so I don't need Wikipedia as of yet. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will tell you when I will be unblocked. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Doser, do you not understand why you were blocked? Moreover, do you not understand that you are not the one in control of this situation? Your statement "I will tell you when I will be unblocked" is not going to sit well with any administrator with the ability to make that happen for you. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 19:22, 5 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to not contribute original research to almost all Wikipedia articles again. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We wish for you not to, as well. Unfortunately, unless you can show us some evidence of how you plan to keep yourself from falling back into that trap, we have no way to know if you're able to fulfill your wish and therefore we can't unblock you. Please answer the questions you've been asked about how you understand original research, so we have something to work with regarding whether you're competent to edit again. Another unblock request showing no understanding may end with you losing access to this talk page, rather than you being unblocked - we need you to show us progress, not just show us you repeating the same things again and again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2012 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I wish not to contribute original research to articles again.
2=I've been told what original research is, and original research is something you write on your own, but with no references.
3=I will only put referenced articles from either the Internet or my digital camera when it comes to car pictures.
4=I hope not to do block evasion when my main account is blocked and me using an IP address instead.
5=I will not put spam on Wikipedia for edits, meaning I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia at all.
6=I will communicate with the other Wikipedia editors.
7=I will promise to behave myself on Wikipedia once again, not be my old 2006 ways.
8=I have never been a Wikipedia vandal before.
9=I will no longer be doing a three-revert habit like before.
10=My last Wikipedia edit was incorrect because I accidentally wrote some original research in there.
11=I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with this edit that caused my block.

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=I wish not to contribute original research to articles again.<br> 2=I've been told what original research is, and original research is something you write on your own, but with no references.<br> 3=I will only put referenced articles from either the Internet or my digital camera when it comes to car pictures.<br> 4=I hope not to do block evasion when my main account is blocked and me using an IP address instead.<br> 5=I will not put spam on Wikipedia for edits, meaning I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia at all.<br> 6=I will communicate with the other Wikipedia editors.<br> 7=I will promise to behave myself on Wikipedia once again, not be my old 2006 ways.<br> 8=I have never been a Wikipedia vandal before.<br> 9=I will no longer be doing a three-revert habit like before.<br> 10=My last Wikipedia edit was incorrect because I accidentally wrote some original research in there.<br> 11=I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CKMF-FM&diff=519306728&oldid=518609048 this edit] that caused my block. |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=I wish not to contribute original research to articles again.<br> 2=I've been told what original research is, and original research is something you write on your own, but with no references.<br> 3=I will only put referenced articles from either the Internet or my digital camera when it comes to car pictures.<br> 4=I hope not to do block evasion when my main account is blocked and me using an IP address instead.<br> 5=I will not put spam on Wikipedia for edits, meaning I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia at all.<br> 6=I will communicate with the other Wikipedia editors.<br> 7=I will promise to behave myself on Wikipedia once again, not be my old 2006 ways.<br> 8=I have never been a Wikipedia vandal before.<br> 9=I will no longer be doing a three-revert habit like before.<br> 10=My last Wikipedia edit was incorrect because I accidentally wrote some original research in there.<br> 11=I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CKMF-FM&diff=519306728&oldid=518609048 this edit] that caused my block. |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=I wish not to contribute original research to articles again.<br> 2=I've been told what original research is, and original research is something you write on your own, but with no references.<br> 3=I will only put referenced articles from either the Internet or my digital camera when it comes to car pictures.<br> 4=I hope not to do block evasion when my main account is blocked and me using an IP address instead.<br> 5=I will not put spam on Wikipedia for edits, meaning I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia at all.<br> 6=I will communicate with the other Wikipedia editors.<br> 7=I will promise to behave myself on Wikipedia once again, not be my old 2006 ways.<br> 8=I have never been a Wikipedia vandal before.<br> 9=I will no longer be doing a three-revert habit like before.<br> 10=My last Wikipedia edit was incorrect because I accidentally wrote some original research in there.<br> 11=I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CKMF-FM&diff=519306728&oldid=518609048 this edit] that caused my block. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

-- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, alright, alright, alright! I am returning to my original User:Take Me Higher account of which I haven't used since 2006. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! My original account is blocked too! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :::{{unblock|1=I wish not to contribute original research to articles again.<br> 2=I've been told what original research is, and original research is something you write on your own, but with no references.<br> 3=I will only put referenced articles from either the Internet or my digital camera when it comes to car pictures.<br> 4=I hope not to do block evasion when my main account is blocked and me using an IP address instead.<br> 5=I will not put spam on Wikipedia for edits, meaning I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia at all.<br> 6=I will communicate with the other Wikipedia editors.<br> 7=I will promise to behave myself on Wikipedia once again, not be my old 2006 ways.<br> 8=I have never been a Wikipedia vandal before.<br> 9=I will no longer be doing a three-revert habit like before.<br> 10=My last Wikipedia edit was incorrect because I accidentally wrote some original research in there.<br> 11=I accidentally promoted original research in shopping mall articles that led to my last warning with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CKMF-FM&diff=519306728&oldid=518609048 this edit] that caused my block.}} -- [[User:Bull-Doser|Bull-Doser]] ([[User talk:Bull-Doser#top|talk]]) 02:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 ::::::Alright, alright, alright, alright!  I am returning to my original [[User:Take Me Higher]] account of which I haven't used since 2006. -- [[User:Bull-Doser|Bull-Doser]] ([[User talk:Bull-Doser#top|talk]]) 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::Wait!  My original account is blocked too! -- [[User:Bull-Doser|Bull-Doser]] ([[User talk:Bull-Doser#top|talk]]) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)