User talk:Gene Omission

Wallet

Hi Gene,

Your witnessing my learning curve with Wiki, thank you for your patience. I now understand Wiki's postion that links can not be posted, and I can respect that.

However, I am trying to add value in describing that a "RisWallet" - is a "Wallet" that can be convert to a "Wrist Wallet". Like a "Bi-fold Wallet", or a "Chain Wallet", the term "RisWallet" describes a wallet with a unique functional characteristic.

Under Varites I would like to post: RisWallet a type of Wallet that can be converted to a Wrist Wallet.

Please advise me of your thoughts. Thank you, Jill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatieann (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurt Locker award section cleanup

Just want to call your attention to some cleanup of The Hurt Locker's award section. I've outlined what I'm thinking about doing on the talk page here, and would appreciate your thoughts and comments! There's been some contentious editing on this article in the past, and I'd like to avoid that here if at all possible. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: Sara Khan

I have converted your prod of Sara Khan to an AfD discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Khan. I am neutral to deletion, but do not like to see prod applied to the same article twice. Cnilep (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as another incarnation of banned user. In particular, a continuation of User:Newt Winkler; Gnetwerker. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a banned user. I've been editing Wikipedia without a problem since last year. I have no connection with the user that you list. Gene Omission (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Mistakenly blocked - I have no connection to named user

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 2 March 2010 (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.

OK, I've read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Please look at my contributions, and maybe you'll see there is a mistake -- I don't have any controversial edits, just vandalism reversion. But whatever it is, I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Gene Omission (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Perhaps a mistaken block, but whatever I did wrong I promise not to do it again.

Decline reason:

Declining block request because it does not address the rationale for the block and is otherwise inadequate. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 4 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

How can I "address the rationale for the block" other than to say that I have no connection to the banned user, except one edit to a single article in common? What would be "adequate"? This is not fair.

Decline reason:

Per explanation below by Cool Hand Luke, this one is plainly obvious given the level of connections. The blocked users response is unconvincing and the evidence is pretty irrefutable here. Jayron32 00:10, 6 March 2010 (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.

Comment from blocking admin

It was not just "one article" in common with the banned editor. This account became very active on February 16, the day after Newt Winkler gave up the ghost. It then proceeded immediately to continue with several of Newt Winkler's projects, including re-PRODing Sara Khan[1] and restoring a series of edits at Munich[2] made by Newt Winkler[3]. Incidentally, this account has restored an obscure redirect to the state it was when it was originally created by Gnetwerker[4] (Gnetwerker's original account was renamed per RTV based on his repeatedly broken promise to abandon the project).

On top of this, the account's geolocation is consistent with Gnetwerker, and the account's name is an anagram of a prior sock Gomi-no-sensei. I simply don't believe that an interest in these unrelated and somewhat obscure pages is a coincidence. Cool Hand Luke 15:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but I think you are reading things wrong. I didn't become especially more "active" on Feb 16 (with 4 recent changes rollbacks), but on Feb 18 I ran into User talk:CuteB33, who was adding incorrect categories to tons of articles. So while it looks like lots of activity, it's really that one issue racking up lines in my contrib list. All of the pages you list in common come from reverting banned user User:Standard Operating Procedure. I think is common that, when patrolling Recent Changes for vandalism, you come across single-purpose red-link accounts like that, and just revert everything they've done. So that's the source of those "coincidences". Regaqrding my location, there are a ton of Wikipedia editors around here, so it would not be a surprise that there are others. It seems unfair to cite that as evidence or even a coincidence. I can't comment on the anagram thing, but my sig here was suggested by the friend who first showed me Wikipedia, who also made the first few edits with me. I didn't think it was a big deal.

But in essence, I'm still unsure of what is going on. My edits have nothing in common (except the one case listed above) with those other users and are simply, straightforward vandalism fighting. What is the big deal? It's not like I'm doing any harm here. A bunch of users have been edit warring over the one article that tweaked your interest (Munich) for days without being blocked. Why don't you just let me edit and watch me for a few weeks or months? You'll see I'm not some rogue editor. Gene Omission (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]