User talk:FoxCE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Deleting comments[edit]

Hi. Just want to tell you that if I deleted comments, it was unintentional, and must have been an error I made when editing. I absolutely never delete talk page comments. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Fox, far be it from me to lecture anybody about their own talk pages. However, I have to ask: why did you delete my posts? You do have the right to delete it all - but you also have the right to ask an editor not to post to your page. You could have done that. In any case I get the hint and I won't post here again. If you prefer it, I won't even directly address you again, anywhere.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the posts, I moved them over to User talk:FoxCE/Archive 1 with the rest of the archive. Sorry if you got the idea that I was being rude or did not want to discuss with you, that is not the case at all. Rather, I feel that I'd rather pull out of the Columbo-related discussion for the time being before getting too involved. I agree that the article needs a lot of work, and perhaps I can come back when I have better ideas for its improvement. On retrospect my comment about an image of the dog into the article may have been a bit misguided. It doesn't seem appropriate or encyclopedic. Perhaps on an article about Columbo characters, but not the main article. — FoxCE (talkcontribs) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a pleasure[edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your fine work at Columbo. Your post also was read and understood--what a relief. —Djathinkimacowboy 18:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no, thank you[edit]

Thank YOU for your contributions to wikipedia! Given your response on Byzantine Empire talk and on my talk page, I clearly wasn't being very articulate. Nothing arbitrary intended. Thanks for letting me know, I've explained myself more fully on the topic talk page.TheCormac (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Notifying users about AN/I reports[edit]

Hi there, when you made this report at AN/I you neglected to inform the user concerned. As you may have seem I have subsequently blocked him/her but the editor is reasonably cross that s/he wasn't informed of the AN/I discussion that ultimately led to the block! Please be careful to follow the instructions at AN/I about informing users, and it would be a nice gesture if you'd go to Bloodofox's talk page and apologise for the omission. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FoxCE (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Jayjg has been stalking me and upon banning me (he also banned my previous account), has also reverted all my (completely legitimate) edits, knowing full well that I can't dispute the reversions. I believe he is clearly doing this to promote his own POV in these matters and continue his personal vendetta against me, and at the very least I would like another administrator to look at this issue, not him. I have tried to make a clean start after the block of the User:CIS account, and if you review my contributions you will see that there is not ONE POLICY that I have ever violated. If I have, I will gladly accept the permaban. I greatly appreciate administrator intervention on this issue. — FoxCE (talkcontribs) 03:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked repeatedly for abusing multiple accounts. The strategy of coming back with yet another account and editing in the same way that got you into conflict in the first place is, shall we say, poorly advised. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

  • Additional note: It appears that User:Jajyg's own personal views conflict directly with the use of BC/AD (he is Jewish), so I think that makes it very obvious that he is inappropriately pursuing his personal vendetta to push his OWN POV on these matters by reverting my legitimate edits. — FoxCE (talkcontribs) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FoxCE (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Per original reason above, and to add/respond to the declining admin: I was not "editing in the same way that got me into the conflict in the first place", I participated in no edit wars and violated no policies or guidelines with my edits through this account. If there is evidence that I did, please do present it. I have come back with this account in an attempt to continue editing in my preferred topics, but have made sure to adhere strictly to guidelines. Everyone has their preferred subject matter, why would it be expected that they no longer edit articles relevant to that subject matter if they are adhering to policy? This will be my last unblock request, but please take the time to review my many constructive contributions to the encyclopedia before declining, and please point out to me any diffs where I made any questionable actions. See this article for an example of my positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Also, please see this example (there are others, check his contribs) of Jayjg seemingly abusing his admin privileges to advance his own POV. He reverted a perfectly legitimate edit that was in accordance with WP:ERA. — FoxCE (talkcontribs) 04:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. You, the person, are forbidden from editing Wikipedia with any account or IP. Max Semenik (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase[edit]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)