User talk:Metalman59

Elockid-Please read this

I was not vandalising anything technically. i wrote an informative paragraph on south asia

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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reason: I was trying to make the article more neutral. I am sorry if others disagreed. Please consider removing my block. I will be more considerate in the future

Decline reason:

You are blocked for Disruptive editing: Editing against consensus, personal attacks, WP:IDHT. You're going to need to do a lot better than that if you really want to be unblocked. I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2011 (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.

There is no excuse for edits like this [1]. There is no possible way that edit was intended to be helpful, it is a racial slur. I think you will find that Wikipedia has a very low tolerance for racism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2011 (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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for a week for a slur. I learned my lesson at that time. However, I am blocked indefinitely for editing the Afghanistan page. I was trying to prove that Afghanistan is not only Central Asian, but West Asian, as modern genetic Hablogroups show. Please review my block. I will be a LOT more considerate in the future, for now I know the consequences. I am very sorry.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, in favor of your more recent request below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:06, 11 October 2011 (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.

Please do not remove declined unblock notices, and maybe you could manage to put your request inside the templae where it belongs, and to make sure it addresses all of the reasons you were blocked, as noted in the last decline. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry, i do not know what template to put this in. I agree. I shall address all of my faults. I repeatedly edited the south asia page because it was a little "greater india" oriented, which some indian users did not like. I was angry, and I admit to using a racial slur, but i am very sorry, and I apologize. Then, i was editing the afghanistan page because it didn't list the west asian side of afghanistan, and said it was in central and south asia. Afghanistan is not in south asia, however, so I edited it. I am sorry. I realize I was very persistent, and my edits could be considered vandalism. Please, I hope you reflect on my block, and in the meantime I promise to get better if you choose to unblock me or take my block from indefinite.

Decline reason:

You've been blocked repeatedly for the same kind of behavior, and the indefinite block appears justified based on that alone; the slurs are merely icing on the cake and I agree with Bwilkins below. You do not appear interested in consensus and you have been given multiple chances after your previous blocks; the remorse in this unblock request, frankly, seems hollow. Kinu ^t/_c 23:34, 13 October 2011 (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.

I've reverted the decline here by an non-admin, and will leave the second request open for another admin to review. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. I have listed all my aggressions above. Please take some time to think about the removal of my block. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

Personally, any person who resorts to combined homophobic AND racist comments like here especially when angry has no place on a project where we value community and consensus. Clearly there's maturity issues here, and this editor has not read nor understood WP:5P. That's my personal opinion, however, I will not decline this unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 13 October 2011 (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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very very sorry for my disrupting history on wikped. I however propose a solution. I promise never to vandalise again. If i ever do, I know the consequences and know that i will be blocked forever without the right to appeal again. i will never vandalise again though. Please I have given this a lot of thought. I swear I will keep promise

Decline reason:

Judging from your response, you apparently still do not grasp the reasons for your block. It's not vandalism that's the problem, it's your tendentious editing and rejection of established conensus, combined with some absolutely outrageous insults, none of which is a recipe for contributing. Previous sanctions on your account have not been any incentive to change the behaviour you have continued to exhibit, so I see no reason to lift this block. WilliamH (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2011 (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.

You're blocked for those racial slurs. It's not a vandalism problem; it's a severe civility problem, and you have given no reassurances except for "say-what-you-wanna-hear" ones that don't have an ounce of substance to them. I will be surprised if any admin undoes the block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:20, 16 October 2011 (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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry. I know about the homophobic and rascist remarks. I am very very sorry as I have previously stated. however, what I am trying to say is that you have nothing to lose. If i ever vandalize or act uncivilized (which I will not), you can just block me forever. PLEASE consider my preposition

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. One at a time. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:34, 19 October 2011 (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.

IF you are unblocked - and I'll say up front that, like all the others reviewing your appeals here, I'm not convinced in the slightest that you won't do this again - if you are unblocked, what edits would you intend to make here? Would you agree to avoid editing articles that relate to the Middle East & India? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already declined a previous unblock request, I will defer to another administrator on the current one, but I will reiterate what has already been said several times here. You have shown little desire to achieve consensus on multiple occasions and it would certainly be an understatement to say your edits have been tendentious. It's not whether there is "nothing to lose" (your words) but whether the encyclopedia has anything to gain by unblocking this account. Given the history here, I can't honestly say if there is. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 18 October 2011 (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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am still asking of my previous preposition. I would agree to edit CORRECTLY. I didn't know how to cite information correctly or anything, but I know now, and I would make useful contributions. As I said, If i didn't, you could just block me forever and take away my right to appeal. And I have promised never to misrupt again, although many of you will not believe me, I am saying, I have.

Decline reason:

You have still not addressed the block reasons provided by the other administrators. If you make another unblock request without doing so, your rights to edit this talk page will be removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2011 (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).

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok. I will adress all of the reasons I have been blocked. I was excessively editing indian related aricles because I thought they were biased, but now i understand why it was considered vandalism, and I was also editing wikipedia articles having to do with the middle east ( such as afghanistan) because I thought they were biased too. I also resorted to using a rasict slur on teh Indian Subcontinent page. I realize now that I am wrong, and I am very sorry. However, I promise to straighten up if you guys give me a chance.

Decline reason:

removing duplicate Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:36, 24 October 2011 (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.

I will agree to a topic ban of Indian and Middle Eastern related articles. After a few months, i would like to have that right back too please.I see why you are hesitant, and I am sorry for all the trouble and time I have wasted. Remember, you can always block me again if i do something (which I won't).However, is there any guides out on editing wikipedia? I need to know how to cite information.

This is a much better appeal, thank you. However, given that you've been blocked twice before for this sort of behavior, I am still hesitant to unblock you. Would you be willing to agree to a topic ban covering Middle East and India related articles, as I suggested above? If you demonstrate that you can edit constructively in other areas, you would be welcome to ask that the restriction be lifted at the administrator's noticeboard after a few months. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ hersfold

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Metalman59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will agree to a topic ban of Indian and Middle Eastern related articles. After a few months, i would like to have that right back too please.I see why you are hesitant, and I am sorry for all the trouble and time I have wasted. Remember, you can always block me again if i do something (which I won't).However, is there any guides out on editing wikipedia? I need to know how to cite information. @hersfold-thank you man, i've read one of them and rest assured I'll edit properly. Is there a way to contact you outside of this page if i get unblocked? Your the only administrator whos been helpful so far, and I might need help later on. thanks

Accept reason:

I have unblocked your account and noted in your block log that you are subject to a topic ban covering all Indian and Middle Eastern related articles, broadly defined, indefinitely. You may appeal this topic ban at WP:AN a minimum of three months from this date. Please note that any violation of this topic ban, or continuation of the same behavior which led to this block, may and probably will result in a reinstatement of this block. Please take some time to review the policies and guidelines listed at the link below before returning to editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty of guidelines, policies, and help pages - here is the one about citing sources, although you may also want to read these about making sure your sources are verifiable and reliable. Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines lists all of our major policies and guidelines.

I'm going to check in with the administrator who blocked you to see if this topic ban is enough to unblock you. Hang on just a little bit longer, and we'll see what we can do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i forget all the time. It was not intentional lol. will keep in mind. Metalman59 02:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban

I see you have agreed to a topic ban on middle east and India related articles, broadly defined. I note with concern your edits to White people, which seem to be on the same topic as you have agreed to a ban on. Editing on these topics by the "back door", by avoiding articles exclusively about them, feels a lot like gaming the system. I quote from policy on topic bans:

Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather

I am investigating the correct avenue to raise this ban evasion, but I will refrain from doing so if you refrain from such edits in future. It may be a good show of good faith if you were to undo recent edits that are related to the topic you agreed to a ban on. I will be notifying the unblocking admin of this, but not requesting any action on their part - just keeping them updated. SamBC(talk) 13:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought since it was a different article I could edit. I'll refrain from it from now on, however, I had reliable sources, etc. i was not aware that the topic ban extended that much too. Thanks for the warning I'll stop.--Metalman59 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an easy enough misunderstanding if your new to the idea of topic bans, and the phrasing that was used when your ban was agreed wasn't the most helpful in terms of making it understood - no worries. Thanks for responding constructively. SamBC(talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when does my topic ban expire?? Thank you, and sorry I just wanted to know. --Metalman59 21:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No length was agreed for it, so I guess, in one sense, it doesn't. It was voluntary, so I suppose you could ignore it, but tendentious editing will probably quickly lead to a new block, and possibly a ban. The proper thing to do would probably be to seek wider community input somewhere, but I'm honestly not sure what the right place should be. Try looking at the project pages on user conduct nd disputes, that may give an idea. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam pointed me to this discussion - your topic ban is indefinitely long (that is, it doesn't end). You can appeal the ban at AN as early as January 26th, however edits such as the ones you've made recently will not help at all. Your topic ban covers any topics referencing the Middle East or India. That means if you are editing about anything remotely related to these topic areas, regardless of the article, you are violating your topic ban. You can edit the White people article, but not if your edits relate to the Middle East or India in any way.

Now I would have overlooked this as a misunderstanding, however it seems as though you are continuing to edit in this area despite Sam's warnings. As such, I am blocking you for 24 hours for violation of your topic ban. Please note that any future violations will result in longer blocks, and repeated violations will result in reinstatement of your original indefinite block. If you aren't sure about where you can edit, please ask before doing so. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the editing, it's just that one editor took out an entire section of the article which was cited and everything, on his basis that only europeans were white, without citing or ANYTHING. I will not edit anymore, but it frustrates me because everything was polished and cited, yet one person vandalizes, and everything changes. If either one of you would like to see what they have done, it is on white people. Look at the talk page as well, as many people are just basing things off their POV. I am not editing anything relating to the middle east, even if it is vague. However, I plead that you look at what is happening. An editing war may have started as well. I would like you to revert the page, because everything was cited, etc. However, you are the administrator. Have a nice day, --Metalman59 18:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Further contentious editing in violation of topic ban

It looks like you simply waited for attention to die down on the article White People before adding back in material that had been removed according to consensus. Not only is this contentious, as the edits are in contention with consensus established on the talk page, but it is also in violation of your topic ban, as you have previously been counselled. I will be drawing this to the attention of admins. SamBC(talk) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st off it barely applies to my topic ban, although I am aware that it does 2nd was it contentious when I got all the reliable sources and made a useful contribution only to have it deleted by 2 people who said white people were only europeans? 3rd I barely edit wikipedia anymore, and since this is a shared computer, I don't even know who it was honestly I told hersfold that I would stop and I did. Just because somebody did it doesn't mean it was me. I'll change the password, calm down dude.

I