User talk:Serial Number 54129: Difference between revisions

	; Archives ;
	No archives yet.
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:52, 12 June 2015

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for defending me at WP:ANI against User:WordSeventeen. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Low IQ

This talk page belongs to a LOW IQ USER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B02B:FE35:0:48:CD74:FF01 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Understand your concerns but I do not believe that GiantSnowman is behaving in a fair, balanced and just way - his targeting of the Bantams Banter page is for personal reasons and I am just defending my corner, I trust you have given him the same friendly 'word in the ear'? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Your GA nomination of James Harrington (Yorkist knight)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Harrington (Yorkist knight) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of James Harrington (Yorkist knight)

The article James Harrington (Yorkist knight) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James Harrington (Yorkist knight) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Synagogue

Please can you clarify why the assertions I made on the US.org.uk wiki page are not allowed to stand with this source: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/12/381997/israel-lobby-to-block-uk-palestine-vote/

which clearly points out that

       "The Zionist pressure group "United Synagogue" has called on all its members to press their constituency representatives to reject the motion or make amendments to it

and that

     "Meanwhile, Davis Lewin, the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Research at the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), has hit out at planners of the recognition proposal, describing them as people who openly want to destroy Israel."

Why is this not a quote that is allowed to stand? Internetwikier (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bizarre wikipedians

Category:Bizarre wikipedians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarthi Aggarwal

It is very difficult to stop Vandalism on this artile. Is there any way to protect the page form IP user edits for a week? - varma (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Varmapak:, Yes I've requested temporary page protection here- so can you if you install WP:TWINKLE in your preferences! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi. Thanks for your concern. There is no edit war. I have dropped my objection to User:23 editor's edits and they can be safely restored. Upon reflection, I see 23 editor's point. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--FDrago77 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that- since you have been reported for vandalism. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users

Thatip edit u reinstated was a blocked user. I am removing it again per WP:Evade. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James V. Toner‎

Users are allowed to completely blank pages that they created. They are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags, except to blank the page, as was the case here. I removed your warning from the user's talkpage, since their edit was valid. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army Faction

I'm very surprised how you wish to make sense of "A family of 4 hunting mushrooms"... But I am willing to be amazed! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase:, I've done a little bit. How true it is I have no idea! It does start off sounding a little Hans Christian Anderson doesn't it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does make more sense that way. The article is on my to-do list. Once I expand it, I will probably outsource the list into a seperate article and go through all incidents, rephrase them and find sources. But it'll need time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Yes it will, but it'll be good work. Have you got Vague's Televisionaries, and Smith's two-volume thing? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any English literature so far, just German. But I'll try to get my hands on the Smith volumes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find my copy atm, but I seem to remember that most of his bibliography was to (not unnaturally!) to German works anyway. good luck. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User reported

Where has he been reported? TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User talk:TeaLover1996, I seem to be getting notifications only intermittently. It was here. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP at User talk:AGK

Don't bother attempting to reason with the IP. The named account is one of multiple socks they have had blocked over the past few weeks - the IP has conveniently neglected to mention the other named accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked for 48 hours for making personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Chillum 18:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit in question: [1].

This is not acceptable. If you can demonstrate that you understand our no personal attacks policy and are willing to follow it then I can unblock you early. Chillum 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Serial Number 54129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in 48 Hours. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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=Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in [[48 Hrs.|48 Hours]]. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again,  [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |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=Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in [[48 Hrs.|48 Hours]]. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again,  [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |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=Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in [[48 Hrs.|48 Hours]]. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again,  [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

User Conduct

Please stop making grossly uncivil comments towards others as you did here. Further instances will result in a block. Mike V • Talk 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 This is not acceptable. If you can demonstrate that you understand our [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] policy and are willing to follow it then I can unblock you early. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Chocolate">Chillum</b>]] 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
+{{unblock|reason=Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not ask for the block to be reviewed as it was perfectly within policy- and indeed, it was probably the only option open to whichever admin had seen it first; I understand that. The language I used was- well, possibly worse than has ever been used against me. I think I knew that myself- the moment I hit 'save page': I considered striking it out- and the only reason I didn't is that I thought that would be a greater hypocrisy. My only excuse was a heat of the moment response to being told to F-off, etc. What I should have done, of course, was to report it myself, and leave well alone. Ironically I have no personal beef with the other editor- we crossed swords today on an administrative page, which drifted onto his own TP- and don't recall any previous interaction with him, negative or otherwise. I think, although I might occasionally be robust (obviously, I see, sometimes too robust!) in my attitude, I've never quite let myself go in a response like that before. I'm taking this as an encouragement to not do so again. Cheers. See you in [[48 Hrs.|48 Hours]]. If I have learned anything from this- it's to re-read (or at least bear in mind) the policies. Thanks again,  [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)}}.
 == User Conduct ==