User talk:Midemer

Welcome!

Hello, Midemer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Jojhutton (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, and reach consensus, before adding them to the article. Thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 22:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pack editing[edit]

I see and agree with everything you said on the Obama talk page. There is a condition on that talk page that somehow doesn't apply to editors who want to keep the Obama page candy-coated. I see it as a serious problem, but there are a pack of editors who gang up and try and chase off anyone who disagrees with their views. Don't take it personal, and know that you are not the only one who has pointed out these major problems. I continue to argue taht cited information needs to be added, but the discussions have somehow disapeared, just like yours did.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are heading and it may just be best not to get into an edit war with the pack of wolves who patrol the page. I have not made a single addition or subtraction from the Obama page,(Vandalism not included), I have only added discussion on the talk page. My major talking points were about how a certain pack of editors have "protected" the main page from any additions that they do not agree with, cited or not. They called everything vandalism and have even been successful in getting other editors banned. It may not be worth the trouble to argue with them, they have a pretty good base or reverters and they consider every one else vandals and non-participants. I have so far been accused of using that talk page as a forum, gaming the system, and for disrupting the talk page. They do all of this as a gang so as to force other editors out, who see things differantly, then they talk about how they always have a consensus. Its easy to have a consensus when you get the opposition banned from editing. Keep eveything on the talk page for now, don't get caught up in an edit war and perhaps we can change consensus to be more WP:NPOV.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article on Obama is sugar-coated. It already violates WP:NPOV because its not balanced. Don't worry about the ban. You weren't the first that they were able to get banned. Just move on and learn that its best not to get into an edit war. I only wish that I could have warned you about it earlier. Next time use the talk page and always remember to be civil. Its also best not to remove discussions from a talk page, even if you don't agree with them. Good luck and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Seb az86556, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he put a similar box on my page and i did not know whether that was a friendly joke or not so i did the same to him. if it was bad then sez did something very bad to me first. Midemer (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I wanted to take a moment to address some of your concerns. First, be aware that repeating bad behavior someone else is guilty of seldom makes the second use right. In other words be the bigger person and ignore some of the more ridiculous behavior of others and do not allow yourself to fall into the same trap.

Closing discussions on the same day is not generally something you see a lot, however if the closer believes that you are violating some core guideline or policy it is something that is done to simply keep the discussion from becoming anything other than how to improve the article itself and not degenerate into a forum or messageboard like, back and forth of discussing the subject itself and not the edits or the article. It's called "hatting" and many times is done simply to archive the discussion without hiding it. I haven't looked too deeply into your specific issues on the Barack Obama page, but be aware it is a controversial article and it can be a bit rough and tumble for new comers to start at such heavy traffic areas. Remeber to remain civil even in the face of incivility and you will be on the higher ground...but also remember that your edits must be neutral and encyclopedic, referenced with relaible sources that are verifiable and try to use the proper inline citations etc. By following the letter of the "law" so to speak, you will be putting yourself in a much more sturdy position should you wish to engage in dispute resolution as there is always the chance of WP:BOOMERANG.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obama advice[edit]

Slow down. I've removed the hatted discussions. Obama is a highly watched article -- to change it, you're going to need to find reliable sources and have methodical, polite discussions on the the talk page. Comments about "inbreeding" are just going to get you shown to the door very quickly. The next time someone throws "sockpuppet" at you, just say "Then file an SPI" and forget about it. Nobody Ent 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice to slow down is well taken.

Your action to "remove the hatted discussions" is unclear. I have not looked yet. Does that mean you removed discussions? If so that is book burning and very disruptive. You are likely to make a normal person mad. However, I am a calm person so if you did that you are the bad person who needs counseling.

Let me see if your advice is good. See your talk page. Midemer (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is appropriate for a new user not familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I have sufficient edit history the no reasonable reviewer would take a sock accusation against me seriously. You also should become familiar with WP:POINT. Nobody Ent 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I thought you said the response should be "then file an SPI" and forget about it. Funny, you don't follow your own advice. Thanks anyway.Midemer (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this edit I am blocking you for 48 hours. Please use the time to read WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

--John (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ideally, a very good administrator would have discussed this with me. However, look at what happened after that edit. I discussed it with the person that left the original edit and learned something. FYI, he said to say "prove it" when falsely accused of being a sock. I then explained that I wanted to test it and was amazed at his alternate response. They taught me that there are alternate responses. I then explained how our discussion was good. Yet John takes things out of context. Please kindly unblock me and I promise that I will re-read those essays at least one more time and not edit for the rest of today. Your understanding and kindness is appreciated. I hope you won't be tough and give some excuse. Thank you.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Unblock requests that fail to address your own behaviours will always be unsuccessful. You were, indeed, disruptive. You took something that was considered mildly uncivil and somehow found a way to get yourself blocked, and judging by your posts below, it's the right decision (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 27 February 2012 (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 predict that there will be no nice administrators so I'll just sit on the toilet for 48 hours...make that 72 horus.

On ANI, administrator John says that he is giving me a "time out" block. Another administrator says that violates WP policy. Therefore, there is no reason to block. In real life, people will then sometimes give alternate excuses. For example, if you are stopped for not using headlights but can show the police that the law says headlights are not required during the day, then the police may say "ok, I arrest you for disorderly conduct even if you are orderly". WP can try to be legalistic and make new excuses, but the honorable thing to do would be to unblock. The next honorable thing to do would be to either not edit or edit in an exemplary fashion. I will do my side of the picture, if allowed. I know many are watching this page....they like it when I sit on the toilet for 48-72 hours. Ha, ha... that editor Midemer, let's bash Midemer's head in ....let's throw eggs at Midemer's back..ha ha...Sadism rules! Mean behavior wins! While we are at it, accuse Midemer of being Hitler! Midemer (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just learned that there is such thing as autoblock so even if some did unblock me, my computer would remain autoblocked for a day. If I am mistaken (and I am not a computer wizard so this is very possible), do not block me for that offence. Midemer (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any admin unblocks you, they can check for an autoblock and lift that too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're smart enough to remove those if the person actually gets unblocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occassionally an admin may forget to check for an auto block. If that happens feel free to ask for it to be lifted, it should be quickly lifted without issue. A moot point as long as the main block isn't lifted. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, I just looked at the list of people asking for unblock. They were given a lot of warnings. I was not and I was not guilty of the original accusation. Therefore, I think someone has an axe to grind that that's why they blocked me. That is not a complaint, merely an observation of human behavior. Midemer (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|New request...Please just give me some encouragement and fulfill my new request. I want to be blocked for one week. And punch me in the ribs, too}}

One unblock request at a time, please. Pick one so I don't have to blank them both. Thanks Tiderolls 23:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking both of your requests would be unfair so I have chose the most recent. You may remove the first and reinstate the second or remove them both and post a new one, but there is no need for two. Tiderolls 00:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tough times for us all[edit]

Hi Midemer. You are really going through some tough times here, and that's really nothing to worry about: I'm a long-time editor, and I also have tough times here.
The Wikipedia project at first glance would seem so simple—the so-called "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"—but it really is very difficult to engage with, if you want to write about things that are contentious. Like your good self, I have very strong opinions (in Wikipedia jargon a "WP:POV"), and a lot of my own knowledge (in Wikipedia jargon "WP:OR") that I would like to add into the project. I'm constrained by Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which I always try to follow. They are tough rules to follow.
And then there is Wikipedia:Civility, fourth of Wikipedia:Five pillars. How tough a rule is that to follow? Well, for example, I crossed that Bright-line rule line with this comment. It was conduct unbecoming to an long-time editor, and I apologise for it.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midemer, in particular, I suggest you also check out WP:Harassment. Whatever DD2K may or may not have done wrong, bringing up their name in every single ANI discussion and directly with so many users is starting to come off as harassment to me, and likely to be a problem if you continue it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midemer for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]