User talk:Since 10.28.2010

Since 10.28.2010 is offline

LOOK

POST ALL COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM, OR THEY WILL BE REMOVED. Signed, An editor since 10.28.2010.

Blocked from editing

Since 10.28.2010, I have been your mentor for 11 days. When I took the role on, I explained to you that you were close to being indefinitely blocked, which you acknowledged. As part of the mentorship process, I've given you many suggestions of ways to improve at your adoption page, discussing them with you if you disagree. However, you have decided to stop engaging with these suggestions - asking why you should care.

I expect this is all part of a "temper tantrum", which we were discussing - I specifically stated that I would take a zero-tolerance approach to temper tantrums and you confirmed that you understood. We went on to discuss your most recent temper tantrum - where you initially refused to accept you were in the wrong. You went on to indicate that you "don't care" that you were in the wrong, you just wanted an answer.

Since this point, you have been unnecessarily confrontational on the reference desk[1][2] and at a user talk (including showing disregard for guidelines), asking questions which appear to be designed to provoke a reaction ("trolling") - how to kill the president and what are farts made of.

Due to the problems mentioned above and also a pattern of disruptive editing habits:

• Obfuscating history by refusing to archive, instead blanking sections of your talk page and including long strings of edits
• Feigning ignorance I bow to you, Lord WTT ... Three (trillion) cheers for you! followed by where exactly did I use sarcasm? four hours later as a direct reply. You had feigned ignorance in the past - prior to my mentorship (under "more concerns")
• Vast majority of article editing is updating sports scores as the game progresses - a minor violation of WP:NOTNEWS

I believe you have worn the patience of the community to the ground and my mentorship (along with Ryan Vesey's good faith) was your last chance to become a productive member of the community. I no longer believe that mentorship is a viable option and so I am summarily blocking you from editing wikipedia indefinitely. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

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).

Since 10.28.2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The questions at the reference desk were actually for a science project, the kill the president was an actual question given by my class. The “I bow to you”, that wasn't meant to be sarcastic. I actually meant that. As in “Thank you for providing me the answer”. And in the “[I] just wanted an answer”, that was before the mentorship. I just wanted the answer to my question, which I wasn't getting. I really don't see why I am getting blocked for again? Worm, please tell me why you strongly recommended, pushed so hard for an archive. I clearly stated I don't want one. No, I didn't know I was blocked on my account, and coincidentially I was editing from an IP address at the time. I didn't know that I was blocked here. I was coincidentially evading a block, I didn't know there was a block in place. Again, “I bow to you” was not meant to be sarcastic. I meant it in kindness. Updating sports scores where; as in 2011 San Francisco Giants season or 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup? Yes, I stated I was being blunt, I thought you would see that. The first one, I was very aggravated, so I posted a reminder that I don't know the answer. The second, I don't see how it's not understandable. I thought it was a reminder to not be blunt. I didn't find it obvious. Again: the questions at the help desk, I actually wanted an answer, I wasn't trolling. I wanted to know the basic composition of flatulence. It was part of a science project. And for the president, I wanted to know the previously used strategies used to assassinate the president. I stated before the comment that it may be a disputable subject. Again, I wasn't trolling, or at least I wasn't intentionally trolling. How exactly did I show disregard at StuRat? I said, to be blunt. And I have been contributing to Wikipedia, in numerous areas. (I will show you if requested.) This was probably a waste of your time. Look, my temper tantrum has greatly affected Wikipedia, but I shall contribute to Wikipedia from then on, will remove all notices and archive, exactly as you said. I know if I say “Give me a chance”, you'll say “You already got one”, so I am choosing my words carefully.

Decline reason:

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that your school genuinely asked you to find out how to kill the president. What rubbish and its a total waste of mine and other editors' time asking us to follow this nonsense. Right now you need to find another hobby and come back in a couple of years when you have grown up somewhat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

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'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).

Since 10.28.2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm trying to keep calm, but you're flaring me. Excuse me, but it's a university, and I put a previous warning, on the dispute of the subject. I don't think you read the whole section above, and I didn't ask how to kill the president. I asked the previous strategies used in preceding assassinations, such as a sniper, firefight, etc. Anyway, for those who are not criticizing me of a question, please read the above unblock, and respond here.

Decline reason:

It is patently clear that you have overstayed your welcome. I would have been inclined to unblock had you come clean about your trolling; your response to claim this was some how part of a "class assignment" or something is simply rediculous; and that you also claim it was part of a university assignment is so blatantly not true that I don't think we need you here anymore. You need to realize you have hit rock bottom here and stop digging yourself deeper. Jayron32 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

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 honestly don't believe that you were asked by the University to find the answers to those questions. Wikipedia is generally an area to use as a starting point for research but is unacceptable to use for scholarly purposes. I would also assume anyone in a University would have the ability to check pages for something as simple as the composition of flatulence. I think this edit seals the deal as to whether or not you should be unblocked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly? I asked a simple question, which I didn't know the answer to. I wasn't going to attempt if the answer was no (which it was, so I didn't attempt). An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For the flatulence: I wanted an answer, and I wasn't trolling. I actually wanted an answer, not a reaction. That's why the section header was “Fart. Erm, flatulence”. I didn't realize that you can't use Wikipedia for those purposes, and no, the university unfortuneately does not have books on composition of flatulence. As for the other question, I just wanted the previous assassination attempts used. On a lighter note, thank you for answering that question. An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I turned off your talkpage access as you are timewasting.Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Hi Since 10.28.2010, If you are still reading this talk page, let me share some thoughts with you: As it says at the guide to appealing blocks, the only way to get a block lifted is to persuade the reviewing admin that you will no longer disrupt Wikipedia (or that you did not in fact do so to begin with). As you can see above, you are having no success persuading anyone that you did not disrupt Wikipedia; so it remains for you to acknowledge that you did it and give assurance that you won’t do it again. If you seriously don’t understand yet that you disrupted, please try harder to understand. It would do no good to persuade people the you do not understand, for that would just mean that you lack the social competence to work with other editors, which itself is a reason to reject your appeal. —teb728 t c 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk Removal

user:Looie496 has removed one of your contributions of the reference desk [3]. It is being discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Removed Section. Buddy432 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a hero

Keep up the good work!