User talk:OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson

The Amazing Race 22 & Survivor: Caramoan[edit]

You are not independent of the IP. You blatantly are the same individual operating the IP. Your edits are not helpful on any of the articles you have been contributing to in the past 24 hours.

You added way too much content about JT to the Caramoan article. He wasn't in the season so why are you saying so much about him?
Your edits to TAR22 are generally unnecessary. We don't need to exactly say how Dave tore his Achilles. And the MediaWiki software makes it such that [[North Vietnam]]ese and [[North Vietnam|North Vietnamese]] parse exactly the same on a saved page. You do not need to pipe the link. Also, there was no reason to revert my edits in any fashion as they instituted some of the grammatical changes that you wanted in the first place.

And, because you are quite obviously that IP editor, this account is now willfully and actively evading a block, and it will likely be blocked as well for evading the first block.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My version is grammatically correct as well (I am sure you agree with this). You cannot revert me just because you think your paraphrase is better than mine. As for Dave, I agree with you and will not add it back. However, I think using the word must is better as it shows that it is mandatory to give away the second Express Pass. I can assure you that I am not the IP, one could use a checkuser to verify this. You shouldn't assume bad faith. Just because an IP reverts to my version, does not mean that the IP is me. It is very common for other users to revert to a version made by somebody else. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it is done repeatedly. And you have had an account for less than 24 hours. How do you know the behavior of other users? How do you even know what "checkuser" is? And for the last damn time, stop changing [[North Vietnam]]ese to [[North Vietnam|North Vietnamese]]. They should very well show up the same on everyone's browser.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP engaging in an edit war with you has nothing to do with me. Also noticed that I have compromised, something that the IP did not do. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an edit that you initially performed. Even though you've kept the link the other way, your edit still lacks grammatical clarity.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is using must wrong? OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the removal of that, the sentence is perfect. The article is good as it is now. I am glad that we have reached an agreement. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with the full sentence, but your use of just "must" replacing the longer phrase looked very awkward.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude just stop. We don't need to add any more semantic details to the TAR22 entry and J.T. was not in Caramoan why do you keep writing about him on the article? It's not important to say that he won the fan favorite vote in his season and Cochran didn't. And it's also not necessary to provide a second or third link to his article in a row.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And stop obsessing over the damn word "must". It does not need to be used. I don't care if it's grammatically correct or not. We do not need to say anything more than what is already there. Team got two express passes, one for themselves and one that they had to give to another team. There is no need to use "must" when "had to" works fine.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you obsessing over had to? OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more natural than using "must".—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's too closely paraphrasing the source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

had to is in the passive voice. Must is in the active voice. We know that active voice is preferred to passive voice in writing. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is better for the phrase to use the passive voice. It seems more natural. How many times do you use the word "must" anyway?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use it often as it is to the point as it shows something compulsory and it is only one word. I won't tell others you have to do this, you have to do that etc. I will say you must do this etc. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as we are describing an event that took place in the past how would the active voice be of any use?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And saying anything more about JT on the Caramoan page is trivial. His finish in a previous season and his subsequent winning of that other prize is not important to the discussion of Caramoan and it's trainspotting behavior at best.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you may be blocked from editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. INeverCry 16:44, 19 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is incorrect as I did not engage in disruptive editing. It is not disruptive because I removed unnecessary information. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How you edited is to me irrelevant as your username, with the name of a notable living person whom you clearly are not, is a clear violation of that policy. Appropriately, the block will be extended to indefinite and any further requests must use {{unblock-un}} to propose a new username as a condition of the unblock. Then we can deal with your editing. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2013 (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.

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain how, as a new account, you came to my twice edit my talk page despite having made less than a hundred edits? Or would you please link any previous accounts with an appropriate template? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a person who makes very few edits can't go to your talk page. OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has claimed that. I asked you how you (a new account) found and picked my talk page.

Since you have clarified that you are a new editor, your explanation would be even more informative. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the right to question me in this way. I have the right to go into any page I want in Wikipedia. I do not need to provide a reason why I go or how I stumble (in your case, I just happened to stumble) into a particular page.OnlyoneSirAlexFerguson (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question, and I shall give your "just happened to stumble ... into" due consideration. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:56, 19 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't impersonating as I did not claim I was that person.

Decline reason:

No, you just used their name. This isn't allowed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:31, 19 May 2013 (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.