User talk:JustinSpringer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome to the talk page of Justin Springer


Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative. Face-smile.svg

Hello, JustinSpringer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

  • Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who put a certain post on a talk page. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.

Redirecting while AfD is ongoing[edit]

From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." At both Yellow Sunday and 2011 Lokpal bill drafting committee, you redirected while an AfD was ongoing. This is inappropriate. As such, I am going to revert your redirects there. If the discussion is closed as a delete, then appropriate redirects could be left behind, but that has to wait until after the AfD has finished. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, Qwyrxian, if I committed such a mistake. I know that the articles should be deleted but both the articles have found their way to the main article, 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. So I thought it would be appropriate to remove the tag and redirect the article to the main article. JustinSpringer (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem--I see you're farily new at Wikipedia. In general, once an AfD is started, it has to run to completion; about the only exceptions are if it can be shown that the AfD was made in bad faith (to be pointy), if it was made by the sockpuppet of a banned user, or if it turns out that it fulfills as speedy deletion criteria and really needs to be deleted faster. The idea is that we allow 7 days for anyone interested to chime in on the issue as to whether or not the subject meets the criteria for having a stand alone article. It may well be that these articles don't, in which case at the end of the week (or so), they'll be redirected again. Enjoy your time on WP, and always feel free to ask if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need your approval to state an opinion[edit]

As someone who has been on Wikipedia for less than 2 weeks, I don't think you have any buisiness setting conditions under which you will accept my contribution to a discussion. And if I gave you a number, would you really change your opinion? Not that such a number would have any relevance, as Mubarak is not a head of state. Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For your information KevinMcE, I said I will accept your view, I didn't speak for the Wiki Community altogether! If you have a habit of taking things personally, well, BREAKING NEWS! I DON'T CARE! JustinSpringer (CautionTalk at your own risk)
Whether you accept my opinion is of no interest to me, or to anyone else. You said that if I gave a number you would accept my oppose, which indicates either a lack of understanding of your own comment, or an opinion that is so easily swung that it should bear little weight. An opinion that is only underlined by the retraction of your comments, an edit done in a rather underhand manner suggesting a lack of the integrity to apologise. You also need to look at a newspaper from time to time: Mubarak is no longer head of state. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. an edit done in a rather underhand manner suggesting a lack of the integrity to apologise. Why do I apologise when you take things personally?
  2. Whether you accept my opinion is of no interest to me, or to anyone else. Why do I care what your opinion is, I just wanted to know why can't Hosni Mubarak's news find place in the Main Page according to you?
  3. You said that if I gave a number you would accept my oppose I said that because Laurent Gbagbo and Mubarak are the only (ex) heads of state recently under fire. And also, you couldn't provide a reasonable explaination as to why you are content with Gbagbo finding a place instead of Mubarak. If you are speaking against an arrested ex-head of state (Mubarak), you should have been intelligent enough to note that Gbagbo is also an arrested ex-head of state and the Egyptian crisis was much more popularized than the Ivorian one and both news are equally important.

@Kevin McE, Please

  1. stop taking everything personally
  2. assume good faith
  3. be civil

Also, even you know that your explanation was completely wrong, as even Laurent Gbagbo was not convicted yet on the front page, so stop giving unreasonable explanations. Also before pointing a finger on me and telling me to read newspapers time to time, I expect you to read the front page time to time so that you know that our usual trigger for court proceedings is not conviction. To have arrest, arraignment, opening of case, conviction is not overkill. This is not an arrest after a long hunt for someone who has been on the run for many years: his whereabouts for the last few months has been a matter of public record, and an arrest could have been affected at any time(the same case with Laurent Gbagbo). Remember pointing one finger at others points three back to you.

JustinSpringer (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should consider your own edits before you lecture anyone else on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Your continued failure to acknowledge your retracted comments, yet alone apologise for the impression given by their removal, speaks volumes. If you had spent any amount of time on ITN/C you would know that my comment about conviction being the usual trigger for court cases is absolutely accurate. And please explain in what way my comments about the ease with which Mubarak could have been arrested for some time is inaccurate (or will you just delete your accusation without apology again): Gbagbo, on the other hand, was being defended by considerable military force. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I know I apologised to you at first but realised my folly that I realised that I was apologising to an idiot for his fault. So I had no option but to retract it. Also, I am fed up of you. You have made me lose my civility. JustinSpringer (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You did not apologise, nor did you find any valid fault in what I said. What you did do was to make accusation, betray your inexperience, draw false parallels, make an offer that you had no intention of honouring, render a thread misleading by editing the key element of what was being replied to, and now made a false claim that you had apologised. Anyone with mature self-control realises that it is impossible for anyone else to make him lose civility: take responsibility. Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
And when you come back from your block, you might want to explain in what way I lectured you on conditions in either Egypt or Cote d'Ivoire: or was that just another unfounded accusation? I bow to your experience of African travel, as you clearly would not be so hypocritical as to suggest that I shouldn't talk about those countries without having been there unless you had intimate knowledge of the venues. While I am not in an airconditioned room (but hey, thanks for the wild assumption), I have clearly read the background and the contrasting situations on the two situations rather more closely than you have. Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot handle criticism, you believe whatever you say is right, you feel that everybody on earth is answerable to you. I can't believe that you are such a cry baby that you threw such a baby-fit tantrum on my question of why you support the news of Gbagbo and not Mubarak, you are diplomatically a failure at life. You are a stubborn and arrogant nincompoop. Remember, we all are equals on this turf and you are no God I will always answer to. Also, I am fed up of your idiocy. Instead of me you are the one who should have been blocked as you were the one starting to bite me and personally attack me. JustinSpringer (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 20:01, 13 April 2011 (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.

JustinSpringer (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Instead of me Kevin McE is the one who should have been blocked as he was the one starting to bite me and personally attack me. Also I demand a reasonable explanation as to how I was abusing multiple accounts. Is TNXMan accusing me of sock puppetry, if yes I demand to know my sock puppets. If no, I demand I be unblocked. JustinSpringer (talk) 11:05 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Decline reason:

It's a checkuser indefinite block with a confirmed basis for your sockpuppetry. If you wish, you can email Tnxman directly for more information, though I suspect given your DailyEditor connection, there's much less that can be done. For statistical purposes, I am declining your request. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:23, 14 April 2011 (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.