User talk:Whirl editing

Also known as Edito*Magica. user talk: Edito*Magica .

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #213

A bit about this user

Whirl editing is an experienced and trusted user who has been editing since July 13th 2007; however up until January 24th 2009, editing was done under his other user name: Edito*Magica. Edito*Magica was wrongly blocked from wikipedia after being accused of vandalism, and so Whirl editing is continuing where he left off, taking articles to new, dizzy heights of quality; appologies for the awful play on words!

You can leave a comment for Whirl editing or Edito*Magica in the Whirl pool below!

Helpful links

• wikipedia: cheatsheet (a quick guide!)
• Help:Wikitext examples (another useful guide!)

The Whirl pool (comment here!)

Topic: One Foot in the Grave article

• Hi,

What do think about moving the character descriptions to a new page?...there is already character description in the plot section, and i think the character section does make the page a little too long? Tell me what you think. Thanks.Whirl*editing (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I think we discussed this before when you were Edito*Magica, but I still think it's a bad idea - the page needs character descriptions to make it comprehensive for readers. By comparison to some articles, the page isn't very long at all, and it's not justified to have a separate page for what are essentially six major characters. There aren't that many minor recurring characters, either, so it wouldn't even be justified as an extended page. In my experience, individual character pages tend to be rather poor quality, and if you look at Wikipedia article traffic statistics, spin-off pages are rarely viewed. Bob talk 15:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, articles about fiction should be discussed in a real-world context. The lists you have been creating do not conform to that guideline and are at risk of being deleted. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok fair enough. People not visiting spin-off pages has always been a concern of mine, and i will begin tidying the character descriptions up soon. Thanks.Whirl*editing (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Template:Do not delete Admitted on his user talk here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hello. I understand that I was blocked for opening this new account (‘Whirl Editing’), after already having an account called ‘Edito*Magica’. However, the latter is no longer used and I had to create a new account after ‘Edito*Magica’ was blacked after being accused of vandalism; I share an I.P address with hundreds of others at university you see. I can’t see how this block is necessary, if you look at my contributions of this new account, and my old ‘Edito*Magica’ one, they are all constructive. Edit warring that has occurred after getting into disagreements about articles, were in the past and have been resolved. As far as I’m aware I have not done anything wrong, but I know vandals also have more the one account, so i presume this is a simple misunderstanding; i’ve never vandalised Wikipedia. Therefore I hope you consider the ban you have placed on me. Thanks. Whirl editing 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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=Hello. I understand that I was blocked for opening this new account (‘Whirl Editing’), after already having an account called ‘Edito*Magica’. However, the latter is no longer used and I had to create a new account after ‘Edito*Magica’ was blacked after being accused of vandalism; I share an I.P address with hundreds of others at university you see. I can’t see how this block is necessary, if you look at my contributions of this new account, and my old ‘Edito*Magica’ one, they are all constructive. Edit warring that has occurred after getting into disagreements about articles, were in the past and have been resolved. As far as I’m aware I have not done anything wrong, but I know vandals also have more the one account, so i presume this is a simple misunderstanding; i’ve never vandalised Wikipedia. Therefore I hope you consider the ban you have placed on me. Thanks. <span style="color:#00ffff"> [[user:Whirl editing| Whirl editing]] </span> 19:06, 28 January 2009 (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=Hello. I understand that I was blocked for opening this new account (‘Whirl Editing’), after already having an account called ‘Edito*Magica’. However, the latter is no longer used and I had to create a new account after ‘Edito*Magica’ was blacked after being accused of vandalism; I share an I.P address with hundreds of others at university you see. I can’t see how this block is necessary, if you look at my contributions of this new account, and my old ‘Edito*Magica’ one, they are all constructive. Edit warring that has occurred after getting into disagreements about articles, were in the past and have been resolved. As far as I’m aware I have not done anything wrong, but I know vandals also have more the one account, so i presume this is a simple misunderstanding; i’ve never vandalised Wikipedia. Therefore I hope you consider the ban you have placed on me. Thanks. <span style="color:#00ffff"> [[user:Whirl editing| Whirl editing]] </span> 19:06, 28 January 2009 (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=Hello. I understand that I was blocked for opening this new account (‘Whirl Editing’), after already having an account called ‘Edito*Magica’. However, the latter is no longer used and I had to create a new account after ‘Edito*Magica’ was blacked after being accused of vandalism; I share an I.P address with hundreds of others at university you see. I can’t see how this block is necessary, if you look at my contributions of this new account, and my old ‘Edito*Magica’ one, they are all constructive. Edit warring that has occurred after getting into disagreements about articles, were in the past and have been resolved. As far as I’m aware I have not done anything wrong, but I know vandals also have more the one account, so i presume this is a simple misunderstanding; i’ve never vandalised Wikipedia. Therefore I hope you consider the ban you have placed on me. Thanks. <span style="color:#00ffff"> [[user:Whirl editing| Whirl editing]] </span> 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.