User talk:Ebacherdom/Archive 1

Your edits to November 25

Do not delete people from November 25 or any other Wikicalendar page. The person that you deleted, Josh Lomberger, was indeed born on November 25 according to his page. Unless you have a reputable source stating that he was not born on this date and cite that when removing such an entry, it is considered vandalism. Thanks for your understanding. Fabricationary 23:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely deleting a non-notable addition to the entry. Additionally, not to be rude or anything - but you've done exactly the same thing on this entry (or else you have something against porn stars), so you have no right to criticize (please see your own edit history for proof of this. THX Ebacherdom 04:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only criteria for a person being listed on a Wikicalendar page is that they have a Wikipedia article. The person you keep deleting does have a Wikipedia article. If you wish to contest his notability, you can read Wikipedia:Notability, and if you feel he doesn't deserve an article, nominate the article for deletion through the WP:AFD process. As long as he has an article, his name can remain on November 25. The only people I delete from the lists are those that do not have articles; this is an entirely different matter. Also, the proper place to talk with me is my talk page. Please do not edit my userpage. Fabricationary 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism, as you did with User:Fabricationary, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fabricationary 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make a personal attack, as you did at User talk:Ebacherdom, you will be blocked for disruption. Fabricationary 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism, incivil behavior, and personal attacks for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. --Chris (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Chris (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

See below

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 believe this block to be unjustified because the individual that I was dealing with was acting in an unkind and unjustified manner. I did post on his user page, and on my own personal user page - and when he warned me I merely responded and haven't escalated matters further. I believe that this block is the result of one individual - and not a reflection of my overall contribution to the wikipedia community (please see my history) and that although the misunderstanding that precipitated the argument that resulted between myself and Fabricationary could easily have been resolved initially if he would merely have explained to me a simple policy that I was unaware of instead of being rude, as I believe he was. I request the immediate repeal of this sanction, and full reinstatement of my rights. Thank you 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The block is fully justified, your actions were beyond incivility and are quite self evidentally inappropriate irrespective of any provocation you may have felt. There is a huge gap between being rude and engaging in personal attacks as you did. I also do not perceive the comments made to you as rude in any way. The fact that you apparently cannot see, or are not willing to admit that your attacks were unacceptabe and instead wish to blame the incident on the person you attacked leads me to conclude that unblocking you at this time would be unwise. --pgk^(talk) 20:52, 8 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

Above and below

Decline reason:

No. In real life, such behaviour would get you a punch in the face. On Wikipedia, you get a permanent block from editing. I can't see at all how you assumed that Wikipedia would accept such a nasty thing to say? It's just not acceptable in real life and less so here. If you can explode so nastily this way for no reason then we don't need you here. You really need to consider how you come across on the internet - in the case of Wikipedia, you come across as someone with a personality disorder. This obviously doesn't apply to you in real life, but we don't deal with real life here. --➨ ЯEDVERS 22:09, 8 August 2006 (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.

.

The fact of the matter is that I was operating under an incorrect assumption and felt that this user was targeting me unfairly and hypocritically in fact. Now, after looking up the policy myself, I believe this not to be the case. The attack I made on this user's page was uncivil, and inapporpriate, but it was an act that was not repeated when I was warned. I recieved a warning, but did not escalate matters and was subsequently blocked. In my mind, warnings should be warning and subsequent violations should warrant penalties. I do not believe that other than the original personal attack that I made that my block is warranted. I apologize for the personal attack, and request reinstatement of my account in good faith that I will not do such a thing again - whether I understand a policy or not. Please, consider this.

I'll leave the unblock tag in place and not deny this one, though I'm also still not willing to unblock. The nature of your attacks is such that no warning should be necessary, if you seriously believed that was a reasonable way to act on wikipedia until you got a warning, then I feel little sympathy for your current position. --pgk^(talk) 21:05, 8 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

{{{1}}}

Decline reason:

It will be automatically lifted --Tawker 22:29, 8 August 2006 (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.

For the record, the original claim by Fabricationary, that removing a person from the November 25 page was 'vandalism' was unneccessarily provocative and not strictly true. Efforts to remove information a person believes to be non-notable are not vandalism, even if it turns out that a consensus of editors disagrees. Only intentional efforts to damage the encyclopedia are considered 'vandalism' on Wikipedia... efforts to improve it, even if mistaken, are not. That being said, this was a minor instance of incivility... and predicated on a viewpoint which is unfortunately very common. However, even if it were a more severe breach of Wikiquette that would in no way lessen the impropriety of the response. Just don't do that. While prior warning was not directly given (though such behaviour is specifically barred in Wikipedia's policies... and direct warning was given more or less concurrently) it should not need to be for attacks like that. I think Ebacherdom has made predominantly positive contributions to date and will likely continue to do so in the future. Alot of people have difficulty dealing with conflict / opposition online and hopefully this will be a one time thing. --CBD 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]