Jump to content

User talk:Idfubar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Idfubar (talk | contribs) at 22:27, 27 December 2017 (→Blocked: More "evidence" to undo one rogue individual's doing - as only necessary on Wikipedia...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Idfubar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DMCer™ 07:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all your work! Let me know if you want a second pair of eyes or a hand with something. II | (t - c) 03:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar check

I have seen your grammar checks, can you provide a quick one for Mudhugauv also explain the problems in the edit summary. Thank you.117.248.60.4 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

-> Done deal; summaries of movies are probably better placed on IMDB or 'themoviedb.org'... but a best effort was made nonetheless... idfubar (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you. What would you say the grammatical issues were.(To avoid future issues.)117.215.195.208 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, hard to say... I am not a linguist (or language expert) so my assessment is only casual - but if there is a problem it seems to stem from a pair of factors (i.e. the fact that the content is better placed in another forum/medium & that the content is non-typical of that which is written in English, i.e. a summary of a complicated story which relies upon references to multiple characters and complex interactions); there might also be some issue about the grammar of listing a given set of things in English... but it's nothing worth getting preoccupied with, IMHO...idfubar (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Idfubar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Idfubar. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Kudpung; it's always nice to hear from other community members - and especially so with respect to those who spend countless hours making Wikipedia an invaluable, impartial source of knowledge (all for no personal gain on their own part - as WP:ABOUT makes clear!); such contributions put my own humble financial & editorial contributions in perspective... though, to be fair - and honest - were contributions truly comparable in such a sense the community would not be as robust as it actually is: the fact of the same is evinced by the spirit of friendly, collegial learning per the other posts on the page; further, your comment wouldn't be accompanied by a second, hidden comment serving as an automatic, near-infinite WP:COI sanction (expiring in "a while", specifically the year 5000, per as-yet unreferenced administrative guidelines regarding the volume of such concerns & the managability of the same). Please do try to think for yourself in determining if you could be creating as many conflict of interest arguments as you're likely purporting yourself to have solved - as bullying goes hand-in-hand with lessons of hatred (and tends to detract from actual diversity, i.e. that not of the tempramental kind) & is fully consistent with a compulsive obsession to have the last word in any disagreement; further, if the scrutiny already afforded to the nature & detail of my Wikipedia editorial activity has not yielded satisfaction please allow me to suggest that, given some concern about conflict of interest, the WP:INCIDENT process be used to clarify that any given volunteer whose employer has a broad scope of interest, e.g. federal government, IBM, university, etc., would not only present the same concern but would also be better served by a declarative understanding of expressed editorial suspicions being better relegated to silent, rather than expressed, bias (as, again, we are all volunteers who work under the same honor system - no matter how daunting & inaccessible initial contribution may appear to be). Fair enough?
PS: Your thoughts - but not your suspicions (given the accompanying authority, time-intensive process of remediation, and irrevokable damage to the reputation of Wikipedia) - are welcome; hope you feel the same way... idfubar (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to Kudpung is complete bullshit. Highly experienced editors and administrators here have seen a wide variety of bizarre responses to legitimate concerns, but yours really takes the cake. Unless your attitude changes quickly and dramatically, your tenure as a Wikipedia editor is highly likely to be brief and inconsequential. Please drop the attitude now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, WP:AVOIDABUSE; further, please note the change of formatting. idfubar (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely for engaging in undisclosed paid editing activity for Blockfolio, which is a violation of the Terms of Use (please read the section "Paid contributions without disclosure"). To appeal this block, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alex_Shih; mail was sent to you in reply via 'Email this user'... but an attempt to use the '{{You've got mail}}' template to notify you via your Talk page didn't (for obvious reasons) succeed... idfubar (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File a proper unblock request by using {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} please, instead of attempting to harass over e-mail with bizarre nonsense. I have ran a check on this account, and there is non-public evidence that this account is connected to the subject in which you have contributed despite of clear conflict of interest, but refusing to disclose even when it clearly violates the Terms of Use. I suggest you read over the documents I have provided to you before filing a unblock request, and do not attempt to wikilawyer (read the essay) with another bizarre response. Alex Shih (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alex_Shih for sharing your perspective on harassment (please consult WP:EMAILABUSE with any further concern). Aside from Draft:Foobarbaz_Blockfolio - a blank, draft stub article, there is not evidence of any connection to the subject ("Conclusions derived from CheckUser data have limited usefulness" per 'WP:CHK'); is it possible '(current)' log entries have confused you...? (Violation of Terms of Use is a pretty serious allegation - would one be subject to not only presumed guilt but secret evidence in defending one's self against it, and, if so, when/where? WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE) IDFubar (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC) - Revised IDFubar (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC), IDFubar (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Not paid by Blockfolio, no affiliation to Blockfolio, no edit relevant to Blockfolio, no intention of violating WP:COI - and, in fact, request for removal of the warning (and the information needed to satisfy its issuer of its misapplication) was obfuscated by the aforementioned block! IDFubar (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the circumstances are not as suggested by the blocking adminsitrator Alex_Shih, no matter how creative he might think himself to be: in offering to help a friend of a friend in authoring his first Wikipedia article, it was discovered that Corpania had already had his article marked for speedy deletion; an attempt to help him recover a copy of his deleted article resulted in a WP:COI warning; an attempt to request removal of the warning resulted in a block for "paid editing"; attempts to request removal of the block have, so far, resulted in false allegations of collusion & ad-hominem attacks on personal style of expression. Please note, again, the facts:

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=Not paid by Blockfolio, no affiliation to Blockfolio, no edit relevant to Blockfolio, no intention of violating [[WP:COI]] - and, in fact, [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_talk:Idfubar|request for removal of the warning (and the information needed to satisfy its issuer of its misapplication)]] was obfuscated by the aforementioned block! [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 15:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)<br> Further, the circumstances are not as suggested by the blocking adminsitrator [[User:Alex_Shih|Alex_Shih]], no matter how creative he might think himself to be: in offering to help a friend of a friend in authoring his first Wikipedia article, it was discovered that [[User:Corpania|Corpania]] had already had his article marked for speedy deletion; an attempt to help him recover a copy of his deleted article resulted in a [[WP:COI]] warning; an attempt to request removal of the warning resulted in a block for "paid editing"; attempts to request removal of the block have, so far, resulted in false allegations of collusion & ad-hominem attacks on personal style of expression. Please note, again, the facts:<br> * [http://www.dslreports.com/profile/u/936072 DSLReports profile for 'idfubar'] (Click '[http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/27393071 [Cable Speed test: 45.18/5.27 21 ms]]' for IP info...) v/s [http://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=blockfolio.com&type=255&server=8.8.8.8&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&advanced=true&go.x=14&go.y=17 nslookup of 'blockfolio.com']; maybe the non-public evidence is of a failure to read & interpret the '[WP:CHECK]' report per its guidelines: "Conclusions derived from CheckUser data have limited usefulness, and a negative finding by a CheckUser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry."? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 04:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)<br> * The author ([[User:Corpania|Corpania]]) of the only - albeit briefly - published 'Blockfolio' article was only warned - and, indeed, only blocked due to his choice of account name; the fact of the same suggests not only a disproportionate response but a fundamental failure of Wikipedia values & principles; shouldn't the goal be to convince the original author not to give up on his first article - rather than to arbitrarily obstruct anyone even remotely willing to pick up the slack? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 10:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC) * The editorial... discretion... exercised thus far is self-evident: [[Openfolio]]. Is the case now being argued on its absolute, rather than comparative, merits? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 22:27, 27 December 2017 (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=Not paid by Blockfolio, no affiliation to Blockfolio, no edit relevant to Blockfolio, no intention of violating [[WP:COI]] - and, in fact, [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_talk:Idfubar|request for removal of the warning (and the information needed to satisfy its issuer of its misapplication)]] was obfuscated by the aforementioned block! [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 15:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)<br> Further, the circumstances are not as suggested by the blocking adminsitrator [[User:Alex_Shih|Alex_Shih]], no matter how creative he might think himself to be: in offering to help a friend of a friend in authoring his first Wikipedia article, it was discovered that [[User:Corpania|Corpania]] had already had his article marked for speedy deletion; an attempt to help him recover a copy of his deleted article resulted in a [[WP:COI]] warning; an attempt to request removal of the warning resulted in a block for "paid editing"; attempts to request removal of the block have, so far, resulted in false allegations of collusion & ad-hominem attacks on personal style of expression. Please note, again, the facts:<br> * [http://www.dslreports.com/profile/u/936072 DSLReports profile for 'idfubar'] (Click '[http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/27393071 [Cable Speed test: 45.18/5.27 21 ms]]' for IP info...) v/s [http://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=blockfolio.com&type=255&server=8.8.8.8&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&advanced=true&go.x=14&go.y=17 nslookup of 'blockfolio.com']; maybe the non-public evidence is of a failure to read & interpret the '[WP:CHECK]' report per its guidelines: "Conclusions derived from CheckUser data have limited usefulness, and a negative finding by a CheckUser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry."? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 04:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)<br> * The author ([[User:Corpania|Corpania]]) of the only - albeit briefly - published 'Blockfolio' article was only warned - and, indeed, only blocked due to his choice of account name; the fact of the same suggests not only a disproportionate response but a fundamental failure of Wikipedia values & principles; shouldn't the goal be to convince the original author not to give up on his first article - rather than to arbitrarily obstruct anyone even remotely willing to pick up the slack? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 10:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC) * The editorial... discretion... exercised thus far is self-evident: [[Openfolio]]. Is the case now being argued on its absolute, rather than comparative, merits? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 22:27, 27 December 2017 (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=Not paid by Blockfolio, no affiliation to Blockfolio, no edit relevant to Blockfolio, no intention of violating [[WP:COI]] - and, in fact, [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_talk:Idfubar|request for removal of the warning (and the information needed to satisfy its issuer of its misapplication)]] was obfuscated by the aforementioned block! [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 15:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)<br> Further, the circumstances are not as suggested by the blocking adminsitrator [[User:Alex_Shih|Alex_Shih]], no matter how creative he might think himself to be: in offering to help a friend of a friend in authoring his first Wikipedia article, it was discovered that [[User:Corpania|Corpania]] had already had his article marked for speedy deletion; an attempt to help him recover a copy of his deleted article resulted in a [[WP:COI]] warning; an attempt to request removal of the warning resulted in a block for "paid editing"; attempts to request removal of the block have, so far, resulted in false allegations of collusion & ad-hominem attacks on personal style of expression. Please note, again, the facts:<br> * [http://www.dslreports.com/profile/u/936072 DSLReports profile for 'idfubar'] (Click '[http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/27393071 [Cable Speed test: 45.18/5.27 21 ms]]' for IP info...) v/s [http://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=blockfolio.com&type=255&server=8.8.8.8&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&advanced=true&go.x=14&go.y=17 nslookup of 'blockfolio.com']; maybe the non-public evidence is of a failure to read & interpret the '[WP:CHECK]' report per its guidelines: "Conclusions derived from CheckUser data have limited usefulness, and a negative finding by a CheckUser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry."? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 04:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)<br> * The author ([[User:Corpania|Corpania]]) of the only - albeit briefly - published 'Blockfolio' article was only warned - and, indeed, only blocked due to his choice of account name; the fact of the same suggests not only a disproportionate response but a fundamental failure of Wikipedia values & principles; shouldn't the goal be to convince the original author not to give up on his first article - rather than to arbitrarily obstruct anyone even remotely willing to pick up the slack? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 10:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC) * The editorial... discretion... exercised thus far is self-evident: [[Openfolio]]. Is the case now being argued on its absolute, rather than comparative, merits? [[User:Idfubar|IDFubar]] ([[User talk:Idfubar#top|talk]]) 22:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Uh, WP:NEWCOMER...? Please note WP:UNCIVIL, Winged_Blades_of_Godric; your contributions are welcome insofar as a constructive solution is itended... IDFubar (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We (again) have more than a half-decade of typographical & grammatical edits & zero involvement with the alleged subject ('Blockfolio'); there is no valid concern regarding the account 'Idfubar' & paid editing - neither now nor six months from now. There is (obviously) nothing preventing Kudpung - or anyone else with the requisite privileges - from issuing a block for any given reason. IDFubar (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Idfubar&oldid=817364803"