Jump to content

User talk:SyberGod/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1   
All Pages:  1 -  ... (up to 100)


October 2010

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exbii, 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. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exbii, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Kinu t/c 21:29, 3 November 2010 (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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is "not" being used only for vandalism , please check my recent edit on "diwali" page if you doubt it , i admit i have involved in personal attacks on "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exbii " , this won't happen in future , please unblock , i will be a good contributor

Decline reason:

The majority of your edits show a profound misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. I don't have confidence that you will 'be a good contributor' when, despite your good intentions, I don't see any evidence that you know how to do that. If you want to be unblocked, you'll need to be much more specific about the edits you'd like to make in the future. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 3 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

i already admitted personal attack on an admin was not intentional but for the deletion of a page left with unsafe content ,if unblocked i promise i won't involve in any future discussions ,if unblocked i will concentrate only in adding data to pages related to India

Decline reason:

I don't see that allowing you to edit here would be a benefit to the project. You may want to see this page for an explanation of what Wikipedia is all about, and this page for an explanation of our policies regarding censorship. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (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.

{{unblock|I promise , No more Personal attacks by me in future , Please unblock , i am willing to contribute wikipedia}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See my comments below

Request handled by: Floquenbeam (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Can someone point to some "vandalism", please? I'll take one instance, although this user was blocked indef as a "vandalism only account". Hint: his first 3 edits aren't vandalism. Also, it appears the "personal attack" was this one comment: [1], is that right? What am I missing, Kinu, Favonian, FQ, Hersfold? Is this account suspected of being a sock of someone? Or is it because the person he called a "bot" was an admin? Is inappropriately calling an admin a bot worse than inappropriately calling a new editor a vandal? I note that this was the only edit he made after his one and only warning before he was blocked. Could you explain what was wrong with it? Is it because we can't be arsed to try to explain to a newbie how things work here, or are we so sure we know how his future here is going to work out that this is just easier? Or perhaps he hasn't groveled enough?

One of two things happened here: there's something else going on that I don't know about, that isn't in his editing history, or this is lazy adminning at it's worst. For all I know SyberGod won't change his ways and will get reblocked soon, but I'm pretty sure we're supposed to give him a chance. Actual honest-to-God vandalism-only accounts get treated better than this. So, please tell me what I'm missing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a constructive edit? I'm willing to give second chances, I just don't see that this user understands why they were blocked - which, IIRC, is a rather key component of unblocking any account, vandal-only or not. That's why I included the policy links in my decline reason, to help them understand that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I concede that labeling this editor's contributions as "vandalism only" is not literally true, I do think that it was appropriate to block them indefinitely. With the exception of this one they are at best pointless and in this case rude, not so much because of the "bot" as the "STFU". If you wish to give them a second chance, I shall not start a War of the Wheel. Incidentally, this seems to indicate that even without assistance from the commenting editors, they have found their way in the Wikipedia guideline jungle and learned the art of Wiki-lawyering. Favonian (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblocked

SyberGod, I've unblocked you; the blocking admin apparently still believes the block was called for, but has said he wouldn't contest it if I give you a second chance. Please keep in mind the following:

  • Don't yell at admins. In theory, it should be handled with a calm explanation that this is a bad idea, but in practice (much like real life) it doesn't happen that way, especially for a new account who starts yelling at people right from the start. It just isn't smart. While we're at it, please don't yell at non-admins either. Because you've recently been blocked for it, you don't have much of a cushion; you are probably not going to get much of a benefit of the doubt.
  • Note that your edits to the AFD discussion weren't appropriate. We do things here a certain way, and "discussing before deleting" is one of them. Deletion has nothing to do with the goodness or badness of the subject of an article, it has to do with whether an encyclopedia article describing the good or bad thing is appropriate.
  • In general, when starting to contribute in a new place, it's better to watch how things work for a while instead of aggressively leaping into a discussion.
  • If you do want to contribute, please read the links in the welcome template below before resuming editing. They should explain how things work here, and will hopefully make your experience here less rocky. In particular, this isn't a discussion forum, everything is (theoretically) geared toward making an encyclopedia.
  • If you've any questions after reading the links below, you can ask your question here (put {{helpme}} on your page, then ask the question), or go to the WP:Help desk. You can ask me on my talk page too, if you want, but I'm not around much.
  • So, welcome, and please don't get into further trouble; if for no other reason, because it will make me look foolish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, SyberGod, 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! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Floquenbeam and Happy Diwali :)

Hi SyberGod, hope you're well. You didn't get off to a very good start, but it looks like you're gathering pace in a good manner now. Just a few things that help everyone get along a bit better:
  • Remember to sign your comments on talk pages with the squiggles: <nowikie>Bigger digger (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)</nowiki>. Not sure what keyboards are like where you are, if you don't have the key (it's shift + # for me) then there's a link to them to click on below the "save page" button.[reply]
  • Use an WP:EDITSUMMARY (click and read) that summary box lets everyone know what your edit was, and makes things easier for everyone.
  • Finally, there's no need to use the ''' code to add bold text everywhere, it's intended for particular emphasis.
That's it from my end, do you have any questions? Reply here and I'll try to help you out. Bigger digger (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bigger digger , i am still learning --SyberGod (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Craig (SS music VJ)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Craig (SS music VJ) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Top Jim (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


hmmm source was the news channel ! SyberGod (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sachin Tendulkar. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!

Same applies for all users,right ? SyberGod (chat) 16:25, 16 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

per WP:BRD, if someone reverts your additions, argue for inclusion in the talk page of the article to gain consensus. In this case, now four editors have opposed the inclusion of "sachin on twitter" (at most it includes a single line inclusion in the fan following section, not an entire section). Do not revert again, open a talk page discussion on it.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cleanup

Was just patrolling some recent pages and I wanted to applaud your cleanup on Sachin Tendulkar. Great work! --GnoworTC 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , i wrote the whole twitter thing , few opposed , just cut down the stats kind of read :) SyberGod (chat) 16:25, 16 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at [[:Sachin Tendulkar]]. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is totally unfair , i don't know your rules , but they are reverting my contribution for dumb reasons claiming the topic is not encyclopedic ! if it is not encyclopedic stand up and make the edits to look whatever you call it wikipedic or encyclopedic , reverting it in a go is too easy for them that is why i undid their reverts , In return you gone on their side to block me , what the #### ! SyberGod (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

SyberGod, if you look up a section or two, several users explained our rules about edit warring, so the "I don't know your rules" rings a little hollow. Please take these 24 hours to read some pages: WP:EDITWAR, particularly the WP:3RR section; and WP:BRD. If you are adding content that is disputed, it is your responsibility to discuss it on the talk page and gain consensus to include it. If you can't convince people that it belongs, then it's out. You may not like it, but that's how it works here. If you aren't satisfied with the discussion, see WP:DR for your options. What you cannot do is edit war to put it back in, even if you think you're right. If you keep trying to do it that way, you'll keep getting blocked. Also, you're going to be happier here if you lose the "you took their side" attitude. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2010 (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.

Fine , i read your war,rr,brd rules , you admins end up on the wrong side more often , maybe just in my case , i am not ready to debate with User:SpacemanSpiff User:Sodabottle some dumb cry babies on that talk page whose hobbies are just reverting contributions , i'm off , good bye , peace. SyberGod (chat) 16:25, 16 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

Your sig

You should not include the current time ( {{time}} ) in your sig. It confuses people into thinking your posts are current when they're not. -- Ϫ 04:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fine is this ok...


SyberGod (chat)

Yep.. --Ϫ 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cool , thanks SyberGod (chat)

hiiiii

Ok i will try my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perumalnadar (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sachin tendulkar twitter

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sachin tendulkar twitter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E. Fokker (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SyberGod/Archive_1&oldid=1076085562"