User talk:Rangoon11/Archive 1
Friendly bit of advice
Please be very careful with any more edits to King's College London as you have now made 3 sets of reverting edits today. Codf1977 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, User:Codf1977, as best I can tell none of Rangoon's edits today on KCL constitute reverts -- in fact in my view they constitute entirely constructive editing with no element of reverts at all. If nothing else, they aren't sets of reverts because they don't undo something that an intervening edit by someone else has done. I would strongly urge you to read WP:STALKING, though I suspect you're already familiar with it. Rangoon, the place to go if there is additional trouble along these lines is WP:ANI -- but be sure you've got your ducks in a row and are not vulnerable to accusations of the same behavior for which you are reporting someone else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I dispute your claims about his edits :
- WP:3RR clearly defines a revert as "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule"
- I dispute your claims about his edits :
- none of them are IMO covered by the exceptions.
- You are correct in your assumption that I am aware of WP:STALKING and my watching of the actions of Rangoon11 is covered in the second para when it says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." - I have had worries about this editors actions, enough to warrant my actions. Indecently, I have no issue with any of his edits to King's College London today and my post here was to make sure that he did not inadvertently overstep the WP:3RR rule, there is nothing wrong with that, I used a personal message, not a template and it was polite and friendly. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's an extremely expansive interpretation/application of "revert", and I doubt it would be taken seriously at 3RR/N. But since you say you are merely trying to be helpful, it would seem that we don't need to worry about that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct in your assumption that I am aware of WP:STALKING and my watching of the actions of Rangoon11 is covered in the second para when it says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." - I have had worries about this editors actions, enough to warrant my actions. Indecently, I have no issue with any of his edits to King's College London today and my post here was to make sure that he did not inadvertently overstep the WP:3RR rule, there is nothing wrong with that, I used a personal message, not a template and it was polite and friendly. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nomoskedasticity, thanks for your support and advice, which is genuniely appreciated. Codf1977 has been stalking me - in fact I think that the word harrassing is more accurate - fairly consistently for a while now. I'm no longer willing to engage with them directly as I don't now believe that it will make matters better. I have now made a formal complaint about Codf1977's behaviour and hope that might improve things. Thanks again. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Stop accusing me of harassment - I am not and you are aware of that as Shell Kinney made it clear that I was not when she replied to your accusation.
As for assertion that "it is not necessary to 'build consensus' for the addition of cited material such as this" that is wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
User:TinaMH
Is this User:TinaMH you? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.117.88 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for three months for abusing multiple accounts and IP addresses and attempting to out others while logged out. You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message. Your other account has been blocked indefinitely, and IP addresses you have been using have been blocked for one week each. Please note that attempts to evade this block will result in the extension of this block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Rangoon11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is grossly unfair. I do not claim that my behaviour has been perfect, and I also know that, having been an editor on Wikipedia for just a couple of months, I am not au fait with all of its rules and etiquette. However, I feel strongly that I have been the vicitim of a very clever effort by Codf1977 and their alias Nomoskedasticity to get me blocked or banned by repeatedly provoking me. Now that they have achieved their objective they have immediately and spitefully been redirecting or marking for (very speedy) deletion a large number of UCL-related articles that I either started or edited over the past couple of months. They have made no attempt to discuss the redirects on the pages in question, they merely posted an after the fact message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, where they knew that very few people connected with the redirected pages would visit, at least in time to do something about it. I have no connection with UCL and, although active on UCL related pages, those edits represent considerably less than half of my total edits. I have also made improving edits to articles related to King's College London and Imperial College London, both well-known rivals of UCL. So, having been in effect tricked into getting blocked by Codf1977/Nomoskedasticity I am now left unable to do anything about their spiteful attacks on UCL-related pages (I am currently bed-ridden so am not able, even if I wanted to, to attempt to 'evade' any blocks by using another PC). A number of articles on highly notable institutes with long histories as independent institutes before even merging with UCL are now in the process of being lost and it truly breaks my heart. I believe that anyone with a knowledge of the areas in which these institutes conduct research would be fully aware of their notability. I ask whoever may read this to look at this article, which establishes the notability of most of these institutes from an indepedent and reputable source: [1]
Decline reason:
Bedridden though you may be, you seem to have had the strength to evade the block using this IP: 92.29.112.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Instead of ranting about conspiracies you should address the reason for your block, namely sockpuppetry. Favonian (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
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.
The article UCL Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Just a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The article UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Just a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The article UCL Faculty of Life Sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Just a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The article UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Just a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Update
I have been taking an interest in your case. Thank you for creating these articles which have good promise. I am defending them from deletion and you can read about this at the discussion listed above and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#UCL Articles created or edited by Rangoon11, where they are all being reviewed.
For now, please relax and just lurk while this batch of articles is pored over by others. After a few days, I will make representations to have your block lifted provided that you undertake to be more restrained. If I should seem to forget then try posting here for an other update. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize for not noticing this sooner. I have made an offer to unblock you, if you will absolutely promise to use only one account, and if you will accept advice from me and the Colonel and both how to deal with conflicts, and how to make supportable articles. Not that the Col. and Ialways agree on either of this, but I think you can learn from both of us. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do think as well as the above condition, s/he needs to address the issue of a WP:COI with relation to UCL, S/he alludes to one as seen by the only major differences to these two posts to the talk pages of UCL and Kings being that he has no current connection to UCL. S/he needs to disclose the nature of that past connection. Codf1977 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)