User talk:Krett12

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise to stick to reverting vandalism and other basic things

Decline reason:

Considering how you ignored multiple attempts to reason you in the past, this request is nowhere near to giving me the confidence about unblocking you. Max Semenik (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2016 (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.

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only ones that were valid and explained WHY it was wrong were s long time ago

Decline reason:

That is plainly not true. I really like to help people get unblocked, but your failure to even see the problems here means that I can not see any justification for unblocking at this time. There have been many many warnings here, up until this very month, yet you have simply blanked them all before requesting an unblock - I urge you to go back and properly understand them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2016 (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.

So what warnings/issues from admins and other users do you consider "valid", and which ones do you consider invalid then? only (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained--but I"m willing to do it again. This IS valid. It explains why they consider it wrong in a politely and civilly voiced manner. I responded, and everyone went to bed happy that night. This, in my opinion, is not valid. It doesn't actually explain why, says snarky and sometimes even intimidating thing that I will "be reported" (something that is by itself innapropriate), even though the error I made was fairly minor and definintely was in no was deserving of that.

That clarified enough? Krett12 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed the declined unblock requests with the comment "I know it says to not remove unblcok requests but they are taking up a lot of space". That means you clearly know that you must not do that, so do not do it again or you are likely to lose the ability to edit even this talk page. I have to say, this looks like yet another example of you not listening and just going ahead with whatever you personally think is best regardless of Wikipedia policies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you did not respond to my actual point. Krett12 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had in my decline of your unblock request when I said "There have been many many warnings here, up until this very month, yet you have simply blanked them all before requesting an unblock - I urge you to go back and properly understand them". If you think I am wrong, then please feel free to post a new unblock request and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I put up two? I have two different reasons. Krett12 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You only need one unblock request - you can include as many reasons as you want in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this will likely be my last try:

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have two reasons I want to be unblocked. One of them is that in addition to my erors, I make many helpful changes. I make enough helpful changes that I am here to contribute to the encyclopedia. THe other one is based off of the classic {{2nd chance}} For example I saw this coming from a mile away and would have reverted it if I wasn't blocked. Many of the warnings I received were several months ago and would like to have another chance. :) I will pay lots of attention and will very rarely (and sometimes even never) do something as stupid as nominate user warning template for deletion. seriously, what was i thinking??. As previously stated, I am mainly, although some roadbumps, a productive member and want to regain the previlige of editing

Decline reason:

I don't see enough competence in editing to merit an unblock at this point. Maybe try again in a few years? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 24 February 2016 (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.

YEARS?! That's a big long. I waited a near month--that should be enough in my opinion. Krett12 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know your concerns if you have any. Krett12 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly did you see that one random vandal edit "coming from a mile away"? How did you know he or she would make that edit before it was made? Also, you say your problems and warnings were months ago, yet you bring up the example of you nominating an important template for deletion...mere hours before your block. only (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about you maintaining a personal website where you post examples of "funny" pieces of vandalism from Wikipedia. Seems contrary to WP:DENY to me. only (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "a mile away" is that I was pretty sure it was vandalism before I clicked on DIFF button. I've only done something as stupid as the deletion once, so if I was the admin I would accept them promising to not do it again. I have stopped linking to that website per that exact page you posted, but I'm not going to take it down. I'm not going to list the website Only is talking about for the exact thing he just said. Krett12 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above you said "This IS valid" and then went on to say "I responded, and everyone went to bed happy that night." I never saw that response as you responded and then removed it off your talk page 1 minute later. I thought you were acting just like previously, removing concerns you didn't like. Looking at your answer now, how is this better than Cluebot's message? -- GB fan 02:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I was archiving. There is NO policy that states you must keep 'em in an archive. About how mine was better, you tell me. After you reverted it you reinstated it. Krett12 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving a minute after you reply is generally considered uncooperative, as it gives the other editor almost no time to read your reply and makes it look like you're trying to avoid scrutiny. This is another example of how you just don't understand how to work in a collaborative environment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did immediately revert myself but that was because I had used the wrong revert link. The one I used the first time didn't allow me to leave a reason. That should only have been used if your edit was vandalism. I did not believe it was so I reverted myself. I then came back immediately and restored the original message with an explanation. I can't give a reason how your warning is better as I do not believe it is. I believe it is much worse. You are the only person who has ever said yours is better. So how is it better? I believe your whole response to my message above is a sign that you don't understand how to work in a collabrative environment. The first two sentences try to deflect the point that you only left your response to my question for less than a minute and turn it on to how their is no policy on how to archive. Then you take part of the story the history shows and turn it back on me to answer my question. You don't appear to like it when you are criticized or questioned about your actions. -- GB fan 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I don't like it. NOBODY likes it, they just are OK with it. I may be blocked, but I still have rights too. I'm Ok with being told I'm not perfect, but I would still like it to be appropriately phrased. Krett12 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Here's a suggestion that might possibly have a chance... Your block on Simple Wikipedia expires in June 2016, so get back to editing that project without getting into any more trouble, and when you are able to show six months of trouble-free editing there, come back here and ask for a WP:Standard Offer unblock? I obviously can't make any promises, but I think that would improve your chances considerably. Anyone got any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for that thought (most admins act as if blocked users have no rights). The simple english wikipedia has something called the "one strike" rule. You can be blocked if you break the rules even once if you are blocked on another project. I also don't really want to go back to simplewiki--I'm really upset about the way I was treated. I would talk more, but I need to respond to the other messages now. Krett12 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your choice, but I'm a little disappointed that you are not open to the suggestion. I've examined your history at Simple and it shows all of the same kind of problems you've had at English Wikipedia, so being able to show you've understood and rectified the problems there would have greatly improved your chances of an unblock here. The only thing I can suggest now is that you wait and go for a WP:Standard Offer. I'd leave it for at least the recommended six months, as I think an unblock sooner than that would be unlikely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The not being open was only part of it, the mean thing was the one strike rule. I might be able to manage not getting blocked again, but not with the onestrike rule being involved. Which is why I wanted to be unblocked here before the community ban expired. Krett12 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Well, Before the block I would have wondered why the template existed if this was an unacceptable use. I would have just asked someone after it. The block reason says that I "refuse to slow down and be careful"---I know you don't want to unblock me, but could we work out an expiry time? How 'bout the 29th? That's about two months. That could give me time to hit the [data:text/html,<script>alert("And by books I mean project pages")</script> books] and be ready to regain editing by then? Krett12 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]