User talk:Handpolk

Fine work

Hi Handpolk, just wanted to mention I'm glad to see the earnest work you're doing in the areas you're editing in now, although do consider that the advice you've been getting from the experienced editors there may be good to take. Regarding the Invitation section above, you should feel free to remove the section from your User Talk if you'd like. Zad68 14:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I gather you mean Statue of Liberty? Dealing with conflict is not my strong suit. The topic ban is probably for the best. Handpolk (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced Talk Message

Everytime he trades a player do we put it on his wikipedia? Or even when he attempts or wants to? Cause he also wants to trade Rudy Gay and there's no way they are trading Cousins. So why don't we write about whrn he wanted to trade igoudala in 2007 and when he traded JR Smith or Carmelo Anthony? How does Cousins differ from that and how is it important that he wants to trade him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toeknee44 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with you adding any of those things, particularly the Carmelo Anthony trade. Theoretically any time a reliable source writes about him, that's a candidate for inclusion in the article. Are you aware of any policy or guideline that says otherwise? Because your objections seem based on your own original research (i.e. knowledge of basketball). And that doesn't factor into the editing process. Handpolk (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. This was left on your User page, I've moved it here and signed it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was very kind of you. Handpolk (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Warriors

Sorry, but you're wrong. Your edit is vandalism. That sentence The Warriors are the current NBA champions, defeating the Cleveland Cavaliers in six games in the 2015 Finals. is IRRELEVANT. And I will continue to REVERT this edit, because that has no place there! Sabbatino (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some research and that edit was made on JUNE 17 and it's irrelevant. Here's that revision's info - 07:01, 17 June 2015‎ DavidSteinle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,160 bytes) (+169). I wonder how noone saw that garbage sooner. You can report me, but I'm right by reverting that edit. Sabbatino (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think it's irrelevant they are the current NBA Champions? Is that some sort of joke? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the talk page. I don't anticipate it will take long for consensus to collectively laugh at you, as I have. Maybe you should go to Barack Obama and remove that he is President of the United States, you probably think that's irrelevant, too. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand why that idiotic statement has no place in there. And everyone will laugh at you when there's a consensus. And why I should do something to Obama's article? Don't start an argument which you will lose. Sabbatino (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't have any idea why that 'idiotic' statement has no place in there. And you've yet to explain why in a way that makes me understand. Let's move this to the article talk page. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration appeal

Hey. There's a template here for appealing arbitration enforcement sanctions. You may wish to reformat your request- alternatively, I'll do it for you if you'd like? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can do it i'd appreciate it. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 09:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassing- GoldenRing had already generously done it. Anyway, it's good now. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

A bit of bedtime reading for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" -- like I disagreed with your opinion, I disagree with theirs. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Stop giving out warnings to people for no reason. If you truly are not a sock, you are not helping your cause by attacking other users.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never given out a warning for no reason. Yet a user is viciously attacking me all over Wikipedia and here you are accusing me of attacks for giving them a warning. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing, comprising giving out harassing and meritless "vandalism" warnings and then edit warring to keep them on the page, at User talk:The Banner and User talk:TheGracefulSlick. I note the warning above has had as little effect as the other warnings you've received for this behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Reason for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary, I warned them for this. The Banner was edit warring across multiple articles, I warned them for this. Both warning were warranted and both were heeded. I made a single revert of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' not does it merit being blocked.

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=Reason for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Handpolk&diff=669910210&oldid=669910125 blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary], I warned them for this. The Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Banner was edit warring across multiple articles], I warned them for this. Both warning were warranted and both were heeded. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=669912007&oldid=669910776 a single revert] of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' not does it merit being blocked. |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=Reason for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Handpolk&diff=669910210&oldid=669910125 blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary], I warned them for this. The Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Banner was edit warring across multiple articles], I warned them for this. Both warning were warranted and both were heeded. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=669912007&oldid=669910776 a single revert] of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' not does it merit being blocked. |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=Reason for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Handpolk&diff=669910210&oldid=669910125 blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary], I warned them for this. The Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Banner was edit warring across multiple articles], I warned them for this. Both warning were warranted and both were heeded. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=669912007&oldid=669910776 a single revert] of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' not does it merit being blocked. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]