User talk:WikiLeon

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #133

Speak on it!

Home   Talk   Wikipedians   Userboxes   Ribbons   Awards   Guide   Tasks

User:Lbmixpro/talkheader

Thanks for the info

For more details on this topic, see User talk:71.131.182.135#Blocked!.

Haha I guess I did get a little heated in my remarks to those other users, and I can see now how you might have thought that I was simply a malicious user. Thanks for the information about what not to delete etc. Not quite sure how causing a ruckus on a site not directly related to the encyclopedia would constitute disruption, but it's your call and I'm fine with that. Is it alright if I take down the warning about removing vandalism warnings and your comment, since I've read them both? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.131.182.135 (talk • contribs) .

Problem with Rory096

Rory096 keeps reverting my page and reinstating Malagurski "warnings" and new as well. Can you tell him to stop? Croatian historian ( ) 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true, I'm a dirty vandal. Even look at the history of WP:AIV, where I was reported twice. And my block log, where I was blocked twice! --Rory096 15:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're vandalizing by deleting the warnings. You've been repeatedly warned to stop deleting them. Try listening. See WP:VANDAL and WP:TALK for the appropriate policy,. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Shut up. Read the page. Lbmixpro and others have apologized for misinterpreting policy. I have the right to remove anything I want from my talk page, and especially trolling like that of Boris Malagurski. Croatian historian ( ) 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Croatian historian, Please try to be civil, please? Since I'm so involved in this dispute, I'm leaving it to another admin to look into this. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, "misinterpreting policy?" WP:VAND is very clear about this. Lbmixpro: Sorry for having to have this spill over onto your talk. --Rory096 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rory: Talk to User:Mel Ettis about this. He found out the vandalism warnings were false, but I predict a major change in policy when it comes to removing warnings. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand policy. How about WP:NPA ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently YOU dont understand policy. Croatian historian ( ) 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize as well Lbmixpro. Croatian Historian: your talk page was blocked by the admins. You think we don't understand policy? Go ahead and read WP:VANDAL....or if you like I'll show you the exact section that states deleting your warnings is vandalism. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting trolling is not vandalism and has always been accepted at wikipedia. On the contrary, adding vandalism and trolling on a talk page may lead to you being blocked. Croatian historian ( ) 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Boris' comment

I feel I should comment on the issue. I would like to start by writing a Croatian historian quote:

• "Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [1]

I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page. He just deleted it. He claims that I'm mad at him because he voted against me when I applied for an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that is not the reason at all. We're all a little biased, some more than others. But this next quote by Croatian historian is too much:

• "Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac was perhaps the most honourable man in history of Croatia of the 20th century, also if compared to great statesmen like Franjo Tuđman." [2]

Doesn't that seem a little too biased. I would even dare to call it nationalist. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. I'd also like to mention some other edits he made to actual articles, which I find are extremely biased, and quite frankly should be considered as vandalism:

• "Serb irredentism and attempt to create a Greater Serbia under Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic led to the Yugoslav wars...", *"Serb war criminal Slobodan Milošević in the Hague...", *<<just erased a bunch of text>>, *<<here as well>>

And that's just what I could find in a few minutes... Not to mention, he's very rude: [3]. Also, here's what he wrote about User:Lbmixpro - "vandalize user pages, needs to be banned", and the same for User:Rory096; "vandalize user pages (restoring personal attacks/trolling, deleting content), needs to be banned" for User:OrbitOne and "adminship abuse, removing properly placed warning templates" for User:Pgk.

Enough said. I don't know if he is blocked at the moment, some users keep unblocking him, maybe they think he might change his ways. Not likely. Block him for good - he is a vandal. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI

Has been started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

For more details on this topic, see User talk:PizzaMargherita#Re: Blocking policy.

Shouldn't users like this be blocked for more than one day? They have brought nothing good to WP... PizzaMargherita 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it's shared, but my point is, look at the contributions: vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism. That's it. They're wasting a lot of our time. PizzaMargherita 10:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The history of that account spans far more than 24 hours. Not one worthwhile contribution. And I'm not saying block forever either, but I would consider one month or two to be more appropriate, so they find another hobby in the meantime. If somebody with good intentions comes around and cannot edit, well, it's not the end of WP is it? And the statistics are pretty clear, that's very unlikely to happen.

Also, is it the right way to answer on my page? What's the point of splitting a discussion? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

srry about that

Further information: User:66.169.1.14

i'm sorry :( 66.169.1.14 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/SPUI

Further information: User talk:Rschen7754 § Re: SPUI's RfC.

As a fellow admin, could you please give me some advice on what happened there at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI? Things sure went sourh. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok b/c it gets worse by the hour... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You sure you endorsed the right summary? Because your edits seem to conflict... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

For more details on this topic, see User talk:NinetyNinePercentGood#Re:_Personal_attack_at_.5B1.5D.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinePercentGood (talk • contribs) 04:21, April 3, 2006 (UTC)

You reverted the deletion of an attack on another Wikipedian, which appears to be an endorsement of the personal attack. I am sorry if you did not appreciate the hostility that the other editor was showing in the 'humor', however personal attacks should not be tolerated. Thank you. ThePuddingHasTheProof 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting involved. I appreciate it. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated. Thank you. Have you been able to find the policy violation that is the basis for Nlu blocking the sockpuppets? He says it is 3RR and NPA, and Point, however he can not find a single violation to cite. If you can find one, that would be great. Thank you so much. CallingAllCars 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that anybody who uses any sockpuppet while blocked, regardless of what the original offense are grounds for the socks to be blocked. As far as I can see from your original talk page, android79 blocked you because of your edits to Pet peeve. Since then, we've determined that you created these sockpuppets to circumvent your block. Every policy violation you made is still valid to your sockpuppets, which is why he states 3RR and NPA. As I can see, this edit refers to your 3RR. As far as NPA is concerned, the only thing I can see is this edit where you implied that Jamie isn't a valued contributer. WP:POINT is a guideline telling you not disrupt to prove a point. However, the same page states "Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive." Please sit out your block and not make any more sockpuppets. Once it's lifted, you can continue on your good faith edits. If you have a problem with the peeve list, you can RFC the article and see what they can do. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In Regards to the 3RR - I did that inadvertently because I | did not understand the policy at that point. I was blocked for 24 hours. I | apologized for it. It has never happened again. Since the account had already been blocked for that, it should not be blocked again. Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the block had expired.

See here and the block - 18:30, March 14, 2006 Android79 blocked "PoolGuy (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Pet peeve)

In regards to the NPA - Nlu warned me. It has not happened since. Since the account had already been warned for that, and it has not happened since, it should not be blocked. Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the warning and nothing was being evaded.

This is the whole issue that is being expressed. I am a good Wikipedian, trying to follow the rules, however administrative action has not been following the rules. The differing point of view with the peeve list was concluded with the AfD. I am looking for accounts to be unblocked and unprotected based on what is right, not to wait out an unfair block that was established on GoldToeMarionette in the first place.

Since your cited sources have not borne out a reason for me to be blocked. Please unblock my accounts now. Thank you for taking the time with this. I really do appreciate it.. SeeingClearly 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm denying unblocks for most of your sockpuppets, becuase they were created to evade a block (justified or not). For GoldToeMarionette and your main account, I've asked somene at a higher level to look into it, and see if it was truly justifiable. They'll also be able to know if the rest of the socks can be unblocked as well. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a response to your request from a higher up is not coming. They have very few edits over the past few days, so their real life is probably occupying their time. Since there are so many blocks by Nlu, perhaps an unprotection of GoldToeMarionette's talk page could facilitate discussion is one location (provided Nlu doesn't protect it again). If you would request another higher up to look at this, it would be truly appreciated. It appears that you can see that the block occurred absent a policy violation. Thanks. FriendlyFriend 03:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

Barnstar Brigade The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date: "Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Information Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The last AC meeting (full log) The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly. A plea from the editor... The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)