User talk:Bluemarine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:31, 2 August 2009

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine motion passed

The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back mate. Let me know if you need a hand with anything. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back; here's hoping it goes well. John, please watchlist this page. Bluemarine remains under tight resriction and the only userspace he's allowed to edit is his own. He could use the email function, though. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to user talk:Eleemosynary

Please don't push it, it's best to steer well clear of anything even vaguely contentious and any user with whom you have any past history. We corresponded extensively through the OTRS response system, I am happy to see you back, but I would strongly urge you to keep yourself very carefully in check. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just noticed this, which I have now reverted, and I agree with JzG here. That edit is making an implicit accusation that has not substantiated by evidence. If you think you have found a problem, please ask someone else to look at it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by: please abide by the terms of your limited unblock. I stuck my neck out for you because I hoped and trusted you would make a new start on the right foot. Let's get things right this time. Durova^Charge! 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colmes.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colmes.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HannityandColmes.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HannityandColmes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Apologies for my edits earlier this evening. I thought my ban had expired because the arbitration ban had ended. May I have an unblock please? I have been contributing useful material at Wikimedia Commons and would like to have a second chance at this project also. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Not directly blocked, and your case is being discussed elsewhere. Step hen 06:04, 18 May 2009 (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.

Matthew, you aren't system blocked apparently because you've been editing at the Matt Sanchez article. Therefore, using the {{unblock}} request is of no use here. However, you are still under a community ban so just because you aren't technically blocked (which you should be since you are under an indefinite community ban) by the system, you are curently not allowed to edit at the English Wikipedia. You will need to get with Durova, your mentor, to find out how to go about requesting a community unblock. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies there; this kind of comes up while I'm multitasking with other things (just put up a featured picture nomination, plus other things going on). We'll be following up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Banned_user_editing; please either post here or email me with any questions or comments. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:09, 18 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to repeal my community block. The Matt Sanchez article has several factual errors and undue weight and I'd like to contribute as possible.

Decline reason:

Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals_process. {{unblock}} only flags your account in Category:Requests for unblock and administrator who watch that category only deal with blocked accounts or IP addresses. Community bans must be referred to the appropriate community/arbitration noticeboards. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 12:21, 11 July 2009 (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.

Just to speed things up, please note that you are free to post any appeal directly within the Wikipedia:Project namespace without having to relay it through your mentor or another administrator. -- Netsnipe ► 12:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Beauchamp

I was the source to Michelle Malkin that helped debunk Scott Beauchamp. The Fact that the Foner, the phoney editor, recognized this says it all. Matt Sanchez 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Appealing a ban

I believe wp:AE is the place to appeal bans. I suggest you try editing some non-political and non-controversial topics to better get the hang of how things work on Wikipedia. Controversial subjects are often heated environments that are difficult and frustrating to navigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, until your community ban is lifted, you should not be editing any page on Wikipedia except your own talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I've asked the above editor, user:Allstarecho to stop harassing me at my talk page and yet he/she continues to do so. Matt Sanchez 09:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the condition of your unban as set forth at [1] by making edits unrelated to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions, including but not limited to [2] and [3]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 07:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editing ban was only against editing parts of my own biography. At least, that was my understanding. If you look above, you'll note that I requested an unblock and was told that I am not blocked just banned from editing on the Matt Sanchez talk page. So, I am at a loss to explain why I have been suddenly blocked for making edits to non-related articles. Also the ban was only supposed to be in effect for 60 days. I've made several appeals thereafter. "If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted." The rules regarding participation here seem murky and ambiguous and I don't understand what my status is, but it seems that the quick jump to blocking me is abusive.

I've backed off my decline; I hadn't realized that the ArbCom ban has expired. I think a clarification from ArbCom would help resolve whether or not the editing restriction was supposed to be applied to the easing of the ArbCom 1 year ban only, or to the community ban. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've "backed off" your decline does that mean ban is lifted or do I request another unblock? Please advise.

unclear what my current status is and editor Jpgordon has "backed off" his initial decline.

Reviewing administrators, please see the ongoing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Matt Sanchez part 2 and the soon-to-be-filed request for clarification. I recommend not unblocking Bluemarine absent consensus as to the status of his restriction(s). Sandstein 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my request not considered?Matt Sanchez 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you make it at WP:AE? Ladyof Shalott 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I am unblocking this account based on three factors: (1) the lack of a clearly defined state of Mr. Sanchez’s editing parameters; (2) the very few edits in questions were not disruptive and one of them, in regard to Mr. Sanchez’s concern on the innuendo-heavy “sexual orientation” section of the Matt Drudge article, addresses serious BLP issues that need attention -- Mr. Sanchez is correct in noting that Mr. Drudge does not promote his sex life and that this section rehashes unsubstantiated gossip that Mr. Drudge never confirmed; and (3) the nature of the block, which was issued with no warning, appears to be designed primarily for punishment rather to prevent disruptive editing or to assist Mr. Sanchez in his Wikipedia contributions – a polite but firm advance warning to Mr. Sanchez would have saved us a lot of stress. However, I would recommend that Mr. Sanchez please consult with his mentor, Durova, prior to further editing of articles and talk pages. Thank you.

Request handled by: Pastor Theo (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Request for clarification: Bluemarine

Hello, I have filed a request for clarification regarding your case; see Request for clarification: Bluemarine. If you want to make a statement with respect to that request, please post it below and ask an editor to copy it to the requests page using {{helpme}}. Sandstein 05:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to clarify as I am fairly confused myself. I thought the ban was a community ban and therefore prevented me from posting to the Matt Sanchez talk page. I edited elsewhere. I believe the edits were in good faith, but was banned again. So, I don't really understand or follow the minutia of all that has gone on. Sorry. {{helpme}} Matt Sanchez 07:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A community ban is exactly that, a community ban.. which means you aren't to edit anywhere except on your own talk page. Durova even told you this back in May. Did you email Durova yesterday and ask her what the status of your community ban was, before you made 6 edits yesterday? Since Durova told you in May that your community ban was still in force and to not edit anywhere but on your own talk page, has anyone told you since then that the community ban was lifted? No, no one told you this since you were last told in May so therefore, you should not have been editing anywhere but on your own talk page. And before you attack me again by saying I am harassing you, please note that I just supported in the discussion at Request for clarification: Bluemarine, the lifting of your community ban. Let me say this again: I just supported the lifting of your community ban which you can read for yourself at Request for clarification: Bluemarine. All I'm asking is that you abide by the restrictions placed on you until you are specifically told otherwise. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

I'm getting consistently harassed by an editor who has shown a lack of professionalism, maturity and good faith. I have asked Allstarecho not to post on my talk page, and yet he/she has consistently done so in an antagonizing and immature manner. Please advise.

I need help filing a complaint against Allstarecho. It's become tedious to have someone of his/her character consistently and childishly ignoring and antagonizing me. I think Allstarecho is extremely biased, immature and unhelpful and his/her editiing is one of the reasons why the Matt Sanchez article is in a substandard state.

I've asked Allstarecho repeatedly not to post on my talk page, and yet he has done so to be both antagonistic, unhelpful and malicious. I don't want to have interaction with people of his/her caliber/character/persuasion or standing. Who do I direct my complaint to? The sooner biased, unqualified and contentious editors like Allstarecho are banned from the Matt Sanchez article, the better for all involved. Two years of this petty back and forth is disgraceful. Please use a more specific OTRS template. See the Template:OTRS or below for available templates. Template:OTRS could refer to one of several templates related to the OTRS system. Instead of using this template, use one of the more specific templates listed below.

Commonly-used OTRS templates

{{OTRS pending}}: Added when an email has been sent to OTRS
{{OTRS permission}}: Permission received via OTRS
{{OTRS ticket}}: Provides a link to an OTRS ticket
{{OTRS talk}}: For article talk pages, where an issue is raised by OTRS
{{OTRS received}}: OTRS received, but is not sufficient to confirm permission
{{Verified account}}: Added to userpage when an account is verified

Blogging vs. Reporting

The portrayal of my reporting in Afghanistan and Iraq as "embedded blogging"[4] is inaccurate and a diminution of work here. I am a war correspondent. The attempts of certain editors to obscure this fact are unsupported and may indicate a lack of good faith

I was never an "embedded blogger" in Iraq and Afghanistan, my credential was always as a embedded journalist.

Over the past two years, I've reported for several news agencies, both domestic and international

National_Review_Online [9]

Weekly Standard [10]

TV5Monde French [11]

El_Norte_(Monterrey) at Grupo Reforma Spanish [12]

My credential is as an embedded journalist, issued by Centcom. Please note Centcom does not have an "embedded blogger" credential.

I am also credentialed as a journalist for the United Nations and separately by Special Forces--Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Afghanistan. Qualification: The UN and Special_Forces_(United_States_Army) are fairly difficult credentials to obtain and being an "embedded blogger" would not suffice.

This is not to "build my resumé" as per some critics, these are just a facts that I can easily substantiate. I'd appreciate if the editors corrected the record at Matt Sanchez. Matt Sanchez 12:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are editors who wish to contact me please e-mail at Matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com Matt Sanchez 13:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BUSTED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eleemosynary

User:Allstarecho

I'd like to suggest a community ban for Allstarecho

The editor User:Allstarecho continues to vandalize the Matt Sanchez Wikiquote page. Please note his/her behavior there and keep it in mind for his/her edits on the Wiki Matt Sanchez article:

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Sanchez&diff=985991&oldid=985990

The Alan Colmes quotes are not sourced to an official transcript

Taken out of context

Have been thoroughly discussed and discarded on the Matt Sanchez article. User:Allstarecho has ignored the will of all other editors and continues to be disruptive in editing the Matt Sanchez article. He/she has also shown an enormous tenacity for unilaterally imposing his/her will and agenda. The very long editing war on the Matt Sanchez continues only because of editors of, in my opinion, have bad faith such as User:Allstarecho.

Matt Sanchez 20:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is vandalism, please report it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

:Otherwise, see WP:DISPUTE, WP:WARN, etc. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as your complaint is about something on Wikiquote, you should take up the issue at Wikiquote. Nothing can be done on Wikipedia about anything on Wikiquote. Cheers. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote matters are handled on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

I'm not sure how to be any more clearer to you Matthew as this has been explained in detail to you since May. You are still currently under a community ban and should not be editing anywhere on Wikipedia except here on your talk page. As a result, I have removed the edits you made today at Talk:Matt Sanchez. Until your community ban is lifted, you should not edit anywhere on Wikipedia except here on your talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have asked this Allstarecho on several occasions not to leave comments on my talk page, but he insists. How do I get the "editor" Allstarecho banned from my talk page? I've asked on several occasion and at this point, this person is unworthy of any type of courtesy. {{Help}}Blue Marine (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this personal attack on Echo, I have blocked you for 72 hours. Echo, I suggest you forget about this user and leave his talk page alone--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Your block was removed, you ban wasn't. You are still under community ban until notified otherwise. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Signature

When signing your name, please include a link to either your talk page or user page or both, not simply your (real) name, as most people aren't going to know which account that corresponds to. Viridae ^Talk 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that. Matt Sanchez 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you sign your name using 4 tildes? (~~~~)? Viridae ^Talk 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status report

Please be as courteous as possible. You can remove messages from your talk page, but some people are very strict here about user conduct. So if you engage in name calling or attacks on other editors you will quickly find yourself unable to edit here. I'm not an expert on the bureaucratic processes and procedures, but it seems to me that your status is being addressed here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine. If you have any questions in the meantime I suggest asking user_talk:Sandstein. You might also be well served to try you hand at editing non-controversial articles on subjects that interest you. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I struck some of my comments as I'm told that discussion expired. There is a discussion here wp:ani regarding your editing status. Sorry about the confusion. Hopefully it will all be sorted out soon. Again, you can remove comments from your talk page, but don't get baited or goaded into reacting aggressively to anyone. ;)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 </s>
-I have asked this pervert, >[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]] on several occasions not to leave comments on my talk page, but he insists.  How do I get the "editor" Allstarecho banned from my talk page?  I've asked on several occasion and at this point, this idiot is unworthy of any type of courtesy. {{tl|Help}}[[User:Bluemarine|Blue Marine ]] ([[User talk:Bluemarine#top|talk]]) 13:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
+I have asked this [[User talk:Allstarecho|Allstarecho]] on several occasions not to leave comments on my talk page, but he insists.  How do I get the "editor" Allstarecho banned from my talk page?  I've asked on several occasion and at this point, this person is unworthy of any type of courtesy. {{tl|Help}}[[User:Bluemarine|Blue Marine ]] ([[User talk:Bluemarine#top|talk]]) 13:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 :Based on this personal attack on Echo, I have blocked you for 72 hours. Echo, I suggest you forget about this user and leave his talk page alone--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]][[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 13:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)