User talk:I3roly

Welcome!

Hello, I3roly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your IP talk page and my talk page

For reference, I replied at User talk:Maschen#diagrams. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 19:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Maynard Keynes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Venture capital, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm K6ka. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Arthur Schopenhauer, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jala Daibajna (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for clearly disruptive editing including this gem but also to include this edit summary as well. Anyone who things homophobic slurs are an appropriate way to express frustration isn't ready for a global and collaborative project such as Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: . However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 04:42, 1 May 2014 (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).

I3roly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i'll stop using foul language. please unban. this guy has ruined many sections and i need to call him out and demand proof. he thinks he's such an expert to tell me to consult HTF (i'm an expert and he's not), it's insulting. you guys aren't even doing anything about it

Decline reason:

Your edit summaries alone -- independent of the content of any of your edits -- are sufficient to get you blocked and keep you blocked. You don't "need to call out" anyone; that's not how Wikipedia works. You need to reconsider your entire approach to editing here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 1 May 2014 (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).

I3roly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

to say my edit summaries are grounds for an indefinite ban are inarguably true, however there has been a rash of misinformation being posted on wikipedia. a simple "undo" of this person's edit would not have sufficed. he would have kept editing it to include econophysics. while you are right that i don't need to "call out people", i was using it as a deterrent. again, if i'm making productive edits (i have for the most part, the history speaks for itself. btw my edit on geometric probability was INAPPROPRIATELY REVERTED (please see the changes, the edits are reverting the vandalism i originally reverted, it's obvious). i do not think a permanent ban like this is totally fair. i know i've been warned, but i didn't know it would be a permanent ban. am i not allowed for one more opportunity? obviously if i do it again you won't see me contest the ban. i have shown that i can be a useful member. i do not feel 4-5 edits are sufficient for a permanent ban, i'm sure there are some who have been banned for a whole lot less. i think it's pretty cut and dry: if i get another opportunity i'd be grateful, and if i do something like this again i wouldn't challenge the ban (i'll even say right now that i'd let the ban be uncontested)

Decline reason:

You say you confess that your edit summary was deserving of a block, but you still seem to be defending your action. Attacking other editors is not a useful 'deterrent' against anything, and homophobic slurs are completely unacceptable behaviour - regardless of how 'inappropriate' the reversions of your edits were. I wouldn't be comfortable unblocking you unless you indicated that you understood why your behaviour was counter-productive. (Also for the record: you have received a block, not a ban.) Olaf Davis (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2014 (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).

I3roly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

of course my behaviour was counter productive, regardless of the use of foul language. the way i approached edits was counter productive because my edit summaries weren't conducive to the "scholarly process". i realize that such behaviour is the antithesis of pursuit of information/wisdom, because it offends other people and results in more administration/babysitting on behalf of editors who i am sure would rather do something else. cmon man i won't be a bully on edits next time. i'll just leave the diatribe out, and if recurring edits happen i'll read the guidelines and report them in order to seek PROPER RECOURSE. fair?

Decline reason:

This attitude displayed in the unblock shows WP:NOTHERE - further such comments will result in removing access to this talkpage. People don't behave well in order to "not offend" - they do it because it's ethically, socially and humanly correct. You agreed to these policies and philosophies when you joined this private website; if you don't want to follow through accordingly, then we remove your access - simple as that the panda ₯’ 10:46, 3 May 2014 (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.

While you are saying you will change your behavior, your attitude towards editing on Wikipedia doesn't appear to have changed. Saying you are an expert gives you no senior status here. The Wikipedia model is one of collaboration among editors, whether there is agreement or disagreement among them. You can expect to encounter other editors who you will have conflicts with on a regular basis (we all do). So far, your assurances do not build confidence that you will be able to handle future conflicts with other editors.

Also, know that if you ever receive an unblock in the future, you can expect your work to receive additional scrutiny. So, there is no use making promises that you do not sincerely intend to keep. You've been blocked now and you will no longer be able to fly under the radar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if i get banned again, then i can't even make edits on wikipedia ever again. do you honestly think that i find that to be "okay"? obviously you guys are going to watch me if i was unblocked, so i don't know why you'd think i'd continue my conduct after being warned. i mean, that's just stupid. i don't want to lose my handle. i've been using a computer for 18 years why the hell would i want to risk my handle on the internet's encyclopedia? i didn't know i'd get blocked permanently in the first place. rest assured this entire process (while annoying) has been quite the learning experience.

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).

I3roly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i'll be good i swear. if you guys are so concerned about my edits, can't you just give me revert rights to save pages from vandalism? it's become clear that the US government is going to edit and spread misinformation on this site in order to perpetuate their own agenda, and that concerns me greatly. thx

Decline reason:

Okay, at this point it is clear to me that your goals don't align well with those of Wikipedia. I've revoked your privilege to post further unblock requests. Max Semenik (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2014 (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.