User talk:EagleScout18

~~== November 2008 ==~~

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide example of "Non-constructive." Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My First "Help Me"

{{help me}}

There appears to be a problem according to the above user. I am removing his original research--- it also appears he is operating with two handles, a name and an IP address. He also appears to be engaging in edit warring. Please advise how to proceed. Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting in good faith something that appears to be vandalism is not edit-warring. There is no requirement for users to log in to edit. The best places to handle your questions are at his talk page (to ask, politely, about his reasons), and at the article talk page to discuss whether or not those figures are original research. [ roux ] [x] 01:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have done this, politely. Also, please note that while not logging in is permissible, not logging in to build the appearance of consensus, or to dodge 3RR rule, is. Reverting correct figures is vandalism, which this user has done. Reverting sourced information is vandalism, which this user has also done. To add, he is violating Wikipedia: No original research. I have posted information that this user disagrees with, which is clearly NOT vandalism. If it continues, I will have no choice but to take it to the notice boards. EagleScout18 (talk)

It looks like what that user did was not vandalism. Please don't start drama. If you wish to improve an article, please take it to the article's talk page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have done this, politely. Also, please note that while not logging in is permissible, not logging in to build the appearance of consensus, or to dodge 3RR rule, is. Reverting correct figures is vandalism, which this user has done. Reverting sourced information is vandalism, which this user has also done. To add, he is violating Wikipedia: No original research. I have posted information that this user disagrees with, which is clearly NOT vandalism. If it continues, I will have no choice but to take it to the notice boards. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Dropped by to say sorry about the edit conflicts earlier on that Ralph Nader Page. Huggle said it was un constructive, and the vandals kept rising.. So I mistakened you for a vandal. Sorry. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing, asking someone else for something which I did wrong, is okay... But Being so dramatic about it and "bringing it to the noticeboards" is something more un civil-ish. I wouldnt do that If I we're you, And Im Sure neither would others... So try calming down. Thanks. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if youre gonna report be to ANI ,okay, but it just doesnt sound right. :S II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith, Restored

If there was a mench award, it would go to II MusLiM HyBRiD II . It takes a big person to do what he did today. Cheers, EagleScout18 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks. Now if you dont mind me asking, whats a mench? Lol, Im only 13, and Im kinda slow, Lol. ^_^ Cheers! II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 03:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL that's funny! Okay, a mench is Yiddish for a very VERY good person, "a human being, upright, honorable, decent person, someone to admire"! Hey, we should create the WP article... :) EagleScout18 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Never was good at yiddish. And yep, we should.II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

)... cool, next project. And I've got to work on my user page, too, when I get myself together :≈O

Anyways, Im gonna go now. Get some sleep 10:30 pm here in new york. :S Take care! ^^II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take good care, II MusLiM HyBRiD II , enjoy your zzzzzzzzzsss :) EagleScout18 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader articles

No problem, so far it's been a pleasure. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You rock :) EagleScout18 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a little worried about hitting it too hard. One edit involves counting the number of times the term was used, another leads the paragraph with Nader used the term Uncle Tom. I don't like either, because they skirt WP:OR and add commentary. I really think the best thing to do with this, given WP:BLP, is to report the bare bones facts given by the sources. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request granted

I reported him as a suspected Sock Puppet and requested a new Check User on his IP. BillyTFried (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm trying to fix the articles. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Help me}}

I am having problems with a user who is repeatedly vandalizing my Talk page. What is the procedure? Please help. Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can warn the user for vandalism, and if they keep it up, file a report at WP:AIV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blockers

You've been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, pushing an agenda, and generally acting inappropriately towards building an encyclopedia. This block, can of course, be appealed by using {{unblock|your text here}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:02, 4 December 2008 (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).

EagleScout18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's difficult to respond to this indefinite block, which came without formal warning, and which I found unjustified. My decision was thus to ignore it and abandon hope of contributing. However, since Baseball Bugs, who has attended quite a number of his own "block parties," as he revels in calling them, has seen to post taunts directed at me on several talk pages while flaunting this block, knowing I am unable to respond elsewhere, and has labeled me a "troll" per User talk:Ryulong, I'm somewhat damned if I do and damned if I don't respond. It remains a challenge to reply rationally to irrationality, or calmly to aggression. I think the note left by Writegeist on Talk:Barack Obama says it best. EagleScout18 (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing your contributions I don't believe that you are here to improve the encyclopedia. — Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2008 (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.

I would respond that your beliefs are incorrect. I have already supplied contributions that improve Wikipedia, which others have duly noted. Thank you Writegeist, who hit nail on head. EagleScout18 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you'll lodge a second appeal in the hope of review by a sysop who has the smarts to see that the block is unwarranted. Good luck. — Writegeist (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests consisting of complaints about other editors will typically be rejected, no matter who the admin is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that remark is unhelpful and at least partially untrue in this instance.

The unblock request at issue self-evidently does not "consist of complaints about other editors." And if the inference of this accusation is, as it appears to be, that ES18's request consists of complaints about Baseball Bugs specifically, then the inference looks retaliatory, and unjustifiably so. ES18 makes no complaint about Baseball Bugs. Indeed far from being a whiner, ES18 seems quite the stoic: he simply cites Baseball Bugs's behaviour, without criticism or complaint, as having, in effect, boxed him in by making him, as he puts it, damned if he responds to the block and damned if he doesn't. (His view may or may not be correct, but that's the view as he expresses it. Right or wrong, it's a coolly stated observation, not a complaint.)

When a contributor appeals against the very serious sanction of an indefinite block, I think it's important that we're scrupulously fair and truthful in our characterizations of the appellant's statements, just as there should be fairness and honesty in the appraisal of his contributions. Also we must take care not to prejudice reviewers against the appellant by inserting a distorted or even wholly false picture of his behaviour into the record — particularly where it might be seen to validate any pre-existing and possibly inaccurate characterizations which, stated or implied by a group opposed to the editor, may have contributed to sanctions against him or her. Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Writegeist. EagleScout18 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

EagleScout18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See comment reason above. EagleScout18 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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=See comment reason above. [[User:EagleScout18|EagleScout18]] ([[User talk:EagleScout18#top|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (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=See comment reason above. [[User:EagleScout18|EagleScout18]] ([[User talk:EagleScout18#top|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (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=See comment reason above. [[User:EagleScout18|EagleScout18]] ([[User talk:EagleScout18#top|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

If you've been denied unblock already, the same comment obviously isn't going to do anything. Grsz ¹¹ 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful for the reviewing admin to read the following exchanges from the "Germany protest ban" section of Obama talk. I have struck through a part that's irrelevant to the to and fro about ES18:

Extract begins:

- Note EagleScout18 has been sent to a block party. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So that's the reward for fairly harmless, albeit somewhat idiosyncratic, behaviour that includes calling a spade a spade and coolly standing up for oneself in the heat of what looked suspiciously like a witch-hunt? Did EagleScout18 grow a wart on his/her nose? Hang out with a black cat? (Answers on my talk page please.) Just curious. Oh well. Being a witch, he/she has presumably mastered Shape-shift 101 and will return as someone (or -thing) else, casting horrible spells to afflict his/her tormentors with boils etc. A~~nd while I'm driving by:~~

Oppose inclusion. Suppressing freedom of expression is so commonplace in democracies as to be a cliché; therefore not sufficiently notable for the summary. — Writegeist (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an indef-block was a bit excessive, but I also suspected he was merely trolling, and he hasn't uttered a whimper since being blocked, so I suspect my suspicion was correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "bit" excessive? A bit of an understatement. As you say, it was all suspicion. And whereas a scamper through ES18's contribs shows that the majority are clearly intended to improve the encyclopedia, his block appeal was nevertheless declined (by a sysop just three months into the job) with the Kafkaesque judgement that "after reviewing your contributions I don't believe you are here to improve the encyclopedia". (Emph. added.) Indefinitely blocking editors who are generally (and demonstrably) well-intentioned will hardly improve the encyclopedia. "...hasn't uttered a whimper since being blocked"? Not true. See ES18's talk page for his/her remarkably civil (under the circs) response to the sysop in question. As you predicate your suspicion about your suspicion on your belief that ES18 was silenced by the block, this evidence to the contrary will now, I'm happy to say, relieve you of your specious suspicion. (If you follow me.) :~) Any reply, my talk please. — Writegeist (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He showed the all-to-typical signs of just being here to push an agenda, and did it in a rather disruptive and typically tendentious, aggressive manner. A good block and good riddance, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, what I said about him being silent was true at the time. His unblock request since then, consisted of complaints about other editors, an approach which typically will result in a decline no matter who the admin is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I can't let that go uncorrected. It is absolutely untrue that his unblock request "consisted of complaints about other editors." He cited in a neutral and totally uncomplaining manner the fact (as he sees it) that Baseball Bugs's pejorative references to him after he was blocked made him feel that he was damned if he appealed and damned if he didn't. The actual text is there for all to see on his talk page. Please. Let's have accuracy in reporting on this serious issue. — Writegeist (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extract ends.

- Writegeist (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle, would you like to give an example of an edit you would do if unblocked? Nothing personal but I don't think this comment or this comment is helping you. The first I find uncivil (you may argue you were joking but I still think you shouldn't have said that) and the second is not the type of attitude of someone who is interested in neutrality, which is crucial to an controversial article like the one you were on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, if you look over history that culminated in those comments, you may find them relatively tame. I apologize if I offended you with these remarks. As for edits, I would like to continue making basic grammatical improvements. I would also like to work with other (hoping for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV) contributors to develop an article that addresses Barack Obama and Afghanistan and Pakistan, which I think will become increasingly more relevant and thus I believe will help Wikipedia get a jump start on the topic. Such an article might also help deter additions pertaining to these issues to Barack Obama-related articles that could lead to edit warring in the future. I also believe that, compared to a number of other contemporary politicians' biographies, the current form Barack Obama-related articles are lacking a balance of sourced, meaningful criticism. Either current articles could use such criticism, or, as one contributor suggested, create a separate article for this. In sum, I find there is room for the above-described content, IMO, that, with proper consensus and dialogue, and without rampant, hostile wisecracks, will greatly improve Wikipedia as a whole, providing a comprehensive base of detailed information. Thank you for your attention. EagleScout18 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]