User talk:Craddock1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:19, 2 January 2013

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amirite.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Amirite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SarahStierch (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Amirite

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Amirite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amirite for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amirite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello, I'm Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Social media, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, Zymurgy (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Amirite.com Article

I'm not the one who made the Articles for deletion nomination. Delicious carbuncle was the one who did so; you'd be better off talking with that user. Also, I can't close the nomination right now per the Articles for deletion project rules; it would have to be done by an admin. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links on social media

Hi, thanks for your message. The main social media articles are referenced in the lead so it didn't seem appropriate to include a selection plus some newer ones per your edit. Good luck with your editing--Zymurgy (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Craddock1. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk it out, why don't we

If you're going to refuse to respond to my points, I'll be forced to take this to ANI. You can't simply restore off-topic criticisms of another editor and then refuse to justify it. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'll get back to you later today -I'm about to go to work,

Thanks,

Philip

December 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: PeterWesco was advancing his arguments as he was going over specific references. He also apologized for any offense. You were warned to not remove comments before and you have now received your final warning. Do not remove or alter other editor's comments in any way. You may address editor's arguments by adding your comments or a rebuttal to their argument. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, I was in the middle of a discussion regarding my block when I was blocked. Please unblock my account since I have promised not to do personal attacks again even though I was informing the admin's about the editors behavior. I am new to WIkipedia so hope you can give me another chance. Also the people involved in the discussion were <(partially incorrect) age details removed>/ I hope you will fairly and objectively assess the matter. The fact that I made 74 edits to my own new article is not 'trolling'. Craddock1 06:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, you have made an egregious violation of policy by tracking a possibly underage editor to another website with the threat of contacting them in real life. This unblock request is declined. MBisanz ^talk 06:47, 2 January 2013 (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.

Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were under 16...Craddock1 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing an editor's age on Wikipedia when they have not disclosed it on Wikipedia is also a violation of policy. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 2 January 2013 (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).

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were <age details removed>. They have disclosed their age as <age details removed>. We were in a discussion to temporarily block me from editing an article and now I have been permanently blocked despite me explaining that i will not break the rules again?. Craddock1 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The outing was only one of many problematic parts of your conduct. The very reason you brought up the editor's age was to insult them for it, as well as many other instances of personal attacks and trolling at the ANI discussion. The reason the ANI conversation was going on, in turn, was because of your disruptive and unacceptable behavior at yet another discussion. You haven't given any reason to believe you've understood that, or that unblocking you wouldn't just lead to more disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 2 January 2013 (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.

They did not disclose their age on Wikipedia. Researching someone's age via Facebook and then posting it on Wikipedia is prohibited unless they have already disclosed their age on Wikipedia.

CommentThis is the link on their wikipedia page: (removed) Anyone who would click on this link would conclude (remove). How am I supposed to know not to click on links and make conclusions. I know now and have learnt me lesson and it won't happen again. Can you unblock me now please.

If you unblock me I promise to adhere to all rules. You can watch me closely and if I break one rule you can block me again...Craddock1 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I was in the middle of responsing to an AFC debate about an article I created. If I am not able to respond the article will get deleted since I have done hours of research on the topic.Craddock1 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You've broken the policy AGAIN by posting the link to their facebook page. If you continue to violate policy by posting personal information in that manner, your talk page access will be revoked. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oh sorry - I thought this page was hiddenCraddock1 07:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've learnt my lesson now so can you unblock me please?Craddock1 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.

The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.

I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior

I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (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= Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.

The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.

I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior

I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (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= Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.

The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.

I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior

I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (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= Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.

The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.

I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior

I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm in the process of writing a comment to Craddock1 on how he should properly format an unblock request. I'd appreciate if the reviewing admin could hold off on declining this for a bit, since I'd like to see if, once it's all been thoroughly spelled out for him, he's capable of doing it the right way. If you don't see this as a compelling reason to hold off on declining, and least please don't revoke talk page access yet, since I think this is much more of a CIR situation than a trolling one. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment written. See below. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2₵

I think everyone deserves a fair chance at getting unblocked. I'm not an admin, but I'm fairly familiar with how things work around here, so here's my approximation of what it would take for you to get unblocked:

Read all of the following policies: WP:OUTING, WP:NPA (especially WP:NPA#WHATIS), WP:BATTLE, WP:GD (especially WP:GD#General advice), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and, of course, WP:GAB
Promise to not engage in any of the following behaviors: ad hominem attacks, overreaction to accusations, accusations of sockpuppetry, incivility, and repeatedly ignoring warnings or advice
Agree to not contribute any more to the AfD. Seriously. You've said all there is to be said. Keep on editing the article, fine, but really, going on any longer will just be disruptive. Nothing you say can circumvent consensus, and so far there hasn't even been a strong consensus to delete; you've probably done more damage by going on so long than any of the "delete" !votes have done.

(Just so you know, if it's deleted, you can request that the admin who deleted it transfer it to your userspace, where you can work on it, resolving any issues cited as grounds for deletion).

Agree to seek mentoring on Wikipedia guidelines and process, especially when it comes to the technical side - how to format comments and the like. Poor formatting isn't in and of itself grounds for blocking, but everyone's patience wears thin eventually.
Retract the mark you made about some "governance committee". Admins are expressly prohibited from unblocking you if you've made any legal threats.
Apologize to A Wiggin13 (talk · contribs) and myself for the accusations you made against us. Believe it or not, there's more than one gay teen out there who speaks French.
Apologize to Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) and PeterWesco (talk · contribs) for disrupting the AfD with ad hominem attacks.
Assure everyone that you will never again comment on another editor's age unless they have clearly stated it on their userpage. Better yet, say you'll never comment on another editor's age, since there's pretty much never a good reason for it.
Mend any other fences you can think to mend, and agree to not engage in any other behavior that is identified as problematic.

To be honest, even with all this I can't promise you you'll get yourself unblocked. But this is the only way, IMHO, you can even have a shot at it. If you ask me, you're not a troll; a troll intentionally disrupts the project, but does little damage. I don't believe that your disruption has been intentional, and I think it's been far more disruptive than any run-of-the-mill trolling. The only way to get unblocked is to acknowledge that you understand why you were blocked, and that you will do everything in your power to avoid such behavior again. You've already filed three unblock requests that fail to do this. If you file a few more, admins may lose their patience, and revoke your talk page access. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fracophonie,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a long message - I appreciate this.

In terms of what I said about the age - I didn't mean to cause offense. I thought I read somewhere that you had to be over 18 to make these decisions but I think I was getting confused with the check user privileges.

I have already read some of those policies but will read the rest later today. I am not a troll - I just need time to get used to all these acronyms, policies etc.

From what started out with me writing an article about my favourite website has turned into a massive thing which was not what I was expecting.

I really don't have any more time to argue and debate with the usrs since its clear they just want it deleted despite what I have said. For example one user just wrote there is another site called Amirite.net. This is Amirite.com!! This is precisely why I had to keep responding on the AFC delete page.

In terms of the rest I agree to do them (of course I can only apologise once I am unblocked) - can you apologise for me?

On a side note I am actually French and Jewish (shame about the gay part though:)