User talk:Mr. Carbunkle

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page User:I am eclipsed, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see

If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to do anything with your account except vandalise, be a sockpuppet, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia. Updating WP:BANNED, for instance, is fine. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 12:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-blocking

I think I need the do the same sometimes. Although it is against policy, this is a handy little tool called the wikibreak enforcer (which will simply log you off if you log in with it). Try that and I hope not to see you editing! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't dare block you, especially after you've gone and buttered up Jimbo. How am I going to compete with that? =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do have to add that this is probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:Rouge admin is a part of Category:Wikipedia humor (which I hope clears it up). Honestly, I wouldn't know (or have I just been sworn to secrecy?). There is still the Rouge-o-meter although I tend to deal more with the fun of The Wrong Version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUGE

What, in god's name, does that mean? Mr. Carbunkle 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you found that evil stuff ;) Was it here? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rouge song

We're evil and we're arrogant

And vicious and conniving and like to rant

Which is why the folks 'round here call us ROUGE

We're part of the supeer-yur race

Don't concurr, we'll slap you in your face

We don't like no as the answer

I know best, 'cause I'm administrator

And if you want to give the truth

That's fine by me. Oh yeah,

But if it can't be sourced at all

I-DONT-CARE-IF-IT'S-TRUE

It's gone

We like policy

S'long as it follows common sense

We know we're the best

Our RfA will tell you all the rest

And if there is an article

That everyone wants kept

But it's not notable or sourced at all

WHAT'S-THIS-WORD-WE-CALL

Concensus?

We're not the rogues they say we are

We just use common sense

And if you don'like our viewpoint

BUDDY-THAT'S-TOO-BAD

Cause I'm rouge

Mr. Carbunkle 01:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one mate. I really like it. Enjoy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I think of rouge admins, for some reason, your name's the first to come to mind. Mr. Carbunkle 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Is it horrible? Do you want me to know about your reason? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? What are you saying? I like rouge admins. The encyclopedia is made better with them going around, deleting stuff against consensus because it violates policy and ignoring every rule that conflicts with their opinions. I aspire to be one someday, if I become a sysop. Mr. Carbunkle 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is that I saw your name, looked at the categories, and saw rouge admin and wanted to see what it is. Mr. Carbunkle 03:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so now you found out about "what it is" and would like to delete stuff against consensus because it violates policy and ignoring every rule that conflicts with your opinions? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You DO know it's only a humorous joke, right? I'd never ignore consensus or go against policy for those things.

... or do I? Mr. Carbunkle 03:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell Mr. Carbunkle since i don't know you. Maybe after a couple of months and some contributions i'd have a clear idea. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

Per WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the use of profanity, but what the fuck took you so long?! No new editor shows up on Wikipedia, edits User:I am eclipsed's userpage first thing with a

This account is a sockpuppet of Connell66 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

tag, has contributed heavily to WP:BANNED and WP:MISS right from the get-go, and has a full understanding of policy and immediate knowledge of rouge admins. Good god, you people! Proabivouac was right, you people are so easily fooled.

...though apparantly not stupid. Mr. Carbunkle 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

What is wrong? Yes, I admit I'm a sock, but not of the user who you thnk I am. Why do you people have to accuse everybody who you see using a second account for stuff most people don't even notice? WP:BANNED doesn't give nearly enough information, and there are probably over one hundred people who should be on WP:MISS who aren't. Please just unblock me?

Decline reason:

let's the unblock abuse stop here... -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:38, 29 October 2007 (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.