→Editing only boxing pages, concerned with boxers who have no connection to the Irish Troubles whatsoever.: Thanks your comment has been pasted to the discussion page |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) m Changed protection settings for "User talk:Vintagekits": Restore prior. ([Edit=Require administrator access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{collapse top}} |
|||
==Talkpage== |
|||
== Since you continue to be disruptive.. == |
|||
Wheres ma talk page?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Anyone?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Anyone?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== One Night In Hackney == |
|||
:Yawn! exact reason?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_more_eyes_on_a_volatile_situation_regarding_The_Troubles] [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::So why is vvvkts....zzzz....ACCUSED (sorry) of not observing good manners? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.164.222.233|85.164.222.233]] ([[User talk:85.164.222.233|talk]]) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement.|decline=You clearly don't ''want'' to understand the meaning of [[WP:CIVIL]] or [[WP:NPA]]. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock 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, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
**understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
**will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}}[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
One Night In Hackney, theres One Night In Hackney, One Night In Haaaaaaaaackney. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)|decline=No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Wikipedia standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}} |
|||
theres One Night In Hackney. |
|||
:What "second bit" - throw me a fecking bone here and explain exactly why I am actually blocked instead of having me chase my tail.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=325272555&oldid=325272125 This edit]. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You dont like making it easy do you. What '''EXACTLY''' is the personal attack that warrants a 48 hour block.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::What a load. You just refactored this page to remove the links to the ANI thread and previous attempts to explain it to you. I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block to avoid you're wasting any more of other's time with this foolishness. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The fact that, considering you have a block list that is literally as long as my forearm you still don't get what you're doing wrong here makes me a sad panda. Which, in itself is odd, since I'm not a panda. It ''does'' still make me sad, though. Have you ever considered maybe going somewhere else on the internet? [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] ([[User talk:HalfShadow|talk]]) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::(EC x2) I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FElonka_2&diff=148653326&oldid=148650313 not always been] Elonka's biggest fan, and for all I know she may not have made the correct decision as far as Domer48 is concerned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the probation itself. To that end, however, it is unnecessary to disparage Elonka herself; a review can take place without such comments, which are not conducive to a productive editing environment. As a corrollary of what you can see at the top of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], comment on the action, not on the administrator. If you really feel it is necessary to review an administrator's action on a wider scale, there are other venues for that which are more productive. Likewise, note that [[WP:NPA]] says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruption." Much as in the case of the probation mentioned here, your history of being blocked for personal attacks was likely considered as a contributing factor when deciding to block your account. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Ban== |
|||
--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
As you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=325364881&oldid=325364790 this ANI thread]. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=325364881&oldid=325364790 this] <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have restored your email and talkpage rights. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you, Rlevse. Vintagekits, please set a good example with your communications. I've vouched for you to a certain degree. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Jehoch, which is in effect, SirFozzie's 48 hours block or Rlevse's indefinate ban?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....== |
|||
== Kittybrewsters accusations of sockpupperty == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WikiDefender_Barnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Glad to see some one <s>has</s> had the '''ability''' and '''tenacity''' to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers <span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]])</span> 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you '''know''' what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up ''"apology"'' in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Shouldnt someone be given Kittybrewster a warning about going around putting sockpuppet tags on long established editors pages without having a shread of evidence. Who the hell does he think he is?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmmmm.....Maybe '''I''' should be apologising: it seems you were merely ''explaining'' the phrase "cop yourself on" when an Admin interpreted that as a personal attack. Bad call. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==''Vintagekits, Vintagekits''== |
|||
::::''Vintagekits, Vintagekits, there's no on like our Vintagekits, <br> |
|||
::::''He's broken every human law, he breaks the laws on wiki-blitz. <br> |
|||
::::''His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare, <br> |
|||
::::''And when you reach the scene of crime--Vintagekits not there! <br> |
|||
::::''You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air-- <br> |
|||
::::''But I tell you once and once again, Vintagekits not there! <br>'' |
|||
::Is the Barnstar something I should NOT wish to have on my name? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.164.222.233|85.164.222.233]] ([[User talk:85.164.222.233|talk]]) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Not banned yet == |
|||
Yes, he is barred [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVintagekits&diff=206940185&oldid=206910110], but the above was posted by an "anon" today on ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=206874023&oldid=206872148] - it is very funny, let it stay for a few hours - we need some laughs here recently. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Besides (you of all people should know, Giano!) being blocked doesn't ban you from editing your talkpage...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">''iride''</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">''scent''</font>]]</font> 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I have to say this looks like a witch hunt. As I look at it, it is beginning to stink. A discussion about a possible ban was opened... a dozen or so people voted straight away to say ban... and then people tried to close the discusion AFTER AN HOUR and impose a ban. Sounds like some canvassing was going on there and some people letting their hurt feelings over rule their reasonable side. Having had a look into this yes VK has some WP:Civil issues but really... complete ban after an hour's discussion? I have to say I think a number of editors should step away from this issue completely. --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 10:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, Gold Heart - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point: |
|||
<blockquote>"To RLevse: ''The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.'' |
|||
== Banned or indefinitely blocked == |
|||
''Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.'' |
|||
1. I am not banned I am indefinately blocked - theres a difference. |
|||
''You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.''! From Vintagekits</blockquote> |
|||
2. Please be so kind as to not visit my user and talk pages.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Posted here by <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, you are mistaken. Per [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban]], you are indeed banned. You are correct that there is a difference—any or all of the [[WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement]] methods may be applied. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Actually kid, '''you''' are wrong I am not community banned and nothing in the link you provided says that I am. I am indefinately blocked '''not''' banned or communiy banned. And you have been destroying good articles and edits on the basis that I am banned - which I am not!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]], could you please show me the ''exact'' words that say Vk is banned? [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Follow the link in my previous message. Under the "Community ban" subheading, Vintagekits is one of two users listed. How else should that be interpreted? — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
All I can see is ''"Community ban" '' under which is |
|||
''*[[User:Vintagekits]] (previously on probation by ArbCom ruling)''. I guess your interpretation has some validity in the purely technical "what it says on the tin" sense:)[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd support that. I'm of the view that Vk was by no means the only person sending emails last night. And the initial block was so bad it merited a severe reaction. IMHO. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Stay off this page Max, next time you come here or to any of my pages then I will report you for provoking me. Andrew, just because someone put my name on that link doesnt justify me being banned. If I put your name there does that mean you are banned? Where is the official decision to say that I am banned because I have never been informed of this - all I have ever been told is that I am indefinately blocked. Which means your witch hunt to oversight edits is against wiki rules and also means that I can apply to come back at any time.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::VK isn't banned. ''If'' he were? He couldn't be posting here (his personal page). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::GoodDay, this is illogical. Blocking is a MediaWiki software mechanism to prevent users from editing anything ''other'' than their own user page. Banning is a social construct that the community imposes on unwelcome editors. Obviously, it makes enforcement of a ban easier if you indefinitely block the user, but the software still allows editing of the user page (if it is not protected). Since blocks and bans are distinctly different, I don't understand how you draw your conclusion. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Not holding any candle here one way or the other, but there is a difference between '''banned''' and '''indefinitely blocked'''. Banned means gone, never to return, while indefinitely blocked means gone with no end date. However, at some later stage an end date could be decided by someone, by which date the indef block would be removed and the user could then edit again. At least, that's how I understand it. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:The.Q|<span style="color:#52D017">The.Q</span>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:The.Q|<span style="color:#00FF00">(t)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/The.Q|<span style="color:#87F717">(c)</span>]]</sup>'''</font> 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I have posted a message at [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Clarification of User:Vintagekits status]] to seek clarification of your status, Vintagekits. The summary on the WP:AE archive page seemed crystal clear to me, but I can also see how there is some confusion here. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry Andrwsc, I was mistaken. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Nothing to be sorry about GoodDay - you were right - the link that is provided says that I am indefinately blocked and '''not''' banned - not one bit of it say banned. Anyway I should be allowed come back as long as I am not editing Irish political articles which is the only sphere in which I run into trouble. Andrewsc has deleted loads of very good boxing articles and how is that helping wiki?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Here are a couple of quotes from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits the discussion about my block] - |
|||
:Show me the diff that justifies preventing this user from any sort of communication. I don't see it. When people get blocked we expect them to get heated and do a little cussing on their own talk page. Escalating at that point is harmful to Wikipedia. Just let them blow of steam and if they are still in the mood to cause trouble after 48 hours, reblock them. If you think the user has warn out community patience, you need to give the community a chance to comment. One hour of discussion is not enough. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*''"User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation. |
|||
::If you do adjust the block, and consensus seems to be against the idea, please do not re-enable e-mails. I don't appreciate e-mails of the type I was sent last night, I don't need to hear how disgusted VK is with me or any of his other opinions on me. There is always the unblock mailing list, or arbcom to e-mail. E-mailing other Wikipedians has already been abused. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison"'' |
|||
:::Have we had a chance to look at this infamous email yet or do we have to just take you word on it that it was as bad as you have been making out? --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*''"All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket"'' |
|||
*Chillum, you have email enabled so you can receive emails - was the email abusive or was it not, perhaps you are "''confused''" - again? In fact, I think I will seek VK's permission to post it here, then we all may judge. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Wow, the choke hold is off! I would like to know why I was banned from my talkpage in the first place. If my talk page wasnt banned then no one would have received any emails - as it was my only outlet of communication at a time that editors were discussing my very "wiki-life" what was I supposed to do. |
|||
:Even though it was late and I was tired and should have been in my nest, I dont think I sent anything untoward, I may have expressed my disgust and disappointment the way some experienced appeared to be screwing the facts in what I considered a "witch hunt". I am happy for any editor to disclose the content of any email I sent last night to allow others deem if it was offending or not. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*''"The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster"'' |
|||
*SarekOfVulcan, asks if Elonka considered my comment a personal attack. Shouldnt the more pertaintant question be to Domer - i.e. if my interpretation of what he meant by "cop yourself on" was a more polite version of what I said.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*''Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John"'' |
|||
*I have little desire to continue explaining my actions here over and over. My removal of talk page access had nothing to do with the discussion at ANI, and pre-dated any serious discussion of a ban/indef block. I was simply trying to prevent VK from posting any more unblock requests during what was at that time only a 48 hour block. Next thing I know this is in my email inbox: |
|||
<blockquote>You obviously have never experienced bashing your head against a brick wall for months on end. I am hounded by British sympathising editors on every page I venture onto because of my support for physical forces Irish republicanism - what you Americans would now call "terrorism". |
|||
I never expect a fair shot so was not suprised by your decline - admins look at my block log and say "fuck me this guy is a monster" - however the vast majority of the blocks were bad blocks and most of the time an admin with enough balls to spot it unblocks me. |
|||
Its simple just come to an end now - I've had enough.</blockquote> |
|||
*and another: |
|||
<blockquote>its utterly contemptable and inflamatory to block someones talkpage - a talk page should not be blocked unless it is being used to abuse wikipedia, cause further breaches of policy or to out another editor. NONE OF THESE WERE BEING DONE!!! |
|||
YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUSH ME INTO MAKING A REAL PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU WHICH I AM ON THE VERGE OF! you are a disgrace!</blockquote> |
|||
*''I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius"'' |
|||
:I'm not particularly offended or appalled by these, but they are not exactly helpful or logical either. VK seems to believe he is the target of some vast British Wikipedian conspiracy. I can only speak for myself of course, but I can assure you my actions were not based in any way on his nationality or political views. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::*you are not offended because there is nothing to be offended by - he is merely explaining to you how he feels. If he feels ganged up upon and victimised, can you really be surprised after the events of last night, when while all of Europe was fast asleep a group of mostly American acted as they did in a seemingly co-ordinated fashion and at such speed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Get real, the idea that this disruptive user feels ganged up on and victimized is a joke. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::(ec) You need to stop beating that drum. Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty, I must say I was surprised to see things progressing so quickly, but the idea that it was some deliberate "anti-European cabal conspiracy" has little to no merit. If anything it was VK who was doing the canvassing with all of his email activity. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm very much afraid you people should have considered your actions and words more carefully during the night - then things may not appear as they do. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: "Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty" - when you can say something like that I really just shake my head and wonder how you were ever allowed be an admin. Rlvese acted acted as judge, jury and executioner last night - and all down in the record time of an hour - whilst all of other had slept, they would have awoken to find me beheaded. I find it strange that until Alsion turned up this was unanimous to ban me - but since then it is even with regards bans and opposes. I find that very strange. Either there is a mailing list or there are a lot of lemmings - maybe both. I dont know, all I know if that I have had the shitty end of the stick here. You personally havent even taken one moment to consider this from my perspective and it shows.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I know i have a potty mouth - it doesnt bother me to be honest its not turned on to insult people its just the way I talk. I supposes it could be a cultural thing.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::If the community chooses 'not' to ban you, I'd recommend no more foul words. Afterall, once the Wiki community tells an editor he/she is out? he/she is out. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Perhaps somebody could write a Javascript filter that would clean up your posts. Watch out for the [[seven dirty words]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hear you GD, and thank you for all your support and advice in the past. It is genuinely much appriciated.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::No prob, Vk. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::PS: I've voted '''oppose''' on the Wiki ban proposal, as you haven't vandalized any articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*''"At least wikipedia is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox"'' |
|||
:::::My personal motto at Wikipedia is "go with the flow". Right, GoodDay?--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::PS, I also voted '''oppose'''.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yep. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*''Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively. Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides. For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round. Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way. If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special Random"'' |
|||
:I saw! I have to say that I am a little disspointed that you did that. Answer me this what made you change it? When in the last year have I vandalised a page or caused so much disruption that it woul dwarrant an indefinate ban?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I had to revert to 'neutral', when I was reminded of your past sock-puppetry. Which (I'm glad) you haven't committed for over a year, since your last Banning case. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It was pretty much unanimous that there should be an indefinate block '''not'' a banned and many editors voiced there opinion that I should be allowed to return after some time. If anyone cared to look at my edit history at the time I my block I had ditched those to socks and had decided to "go straight" and also I had pretty much stopped editing Irish political articles. I dont see the point in this block as long as I am not editing in a distruptive manner.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Official statement requested == |
|||
: Seeing as I originally started the ANI thread, let me just state for the record that I originally started it to request clarification of Vintagekits' indefinite block as it was bound to be controversial. It was not a community request for a ban - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thank you for clarifying that.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Vintagekits, please read the link to the WP:AE page I provided above. An "uninvolved" admin has confirmed that you are indeed '''banned'''. Also, another admin had independently added you to the [[WP:List of banned users]] a few weeks ago. If you are waiting for an admin to provide "official" notice to you, consider this message to be that notice. '''You are banned.''' All the remedies in [[WP:Banning policy]] are applicable, which means that you are not welcome to edit ''any'' page, including this talk page. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Well its quite simple that the guy is wrong - people on that discussion expressly said it wasnt a ban and that it was an indefinate block! If I was able to I would take issue with him are direct him here but I cant. Maybe someone would.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Since Vintagekits solicited me to also post here, I shall reiterate my comments from WP:AE. As far as I can see, the discussion at [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits]] led to a community consensus for an indefinite block with no clear path to resuming editing and no end date in sight. That is as far as I am concerned community ban, and will remain one ''until such time as an administrator decides that Vintagekits should be unblocked''. At which point it will no longer be a community ban, and the administrator may or may not also actually unblock Vintagekits immediately, depending on their judgment, policy at the time, and how firmly they feel. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: But GRBerry, that was not the concensus during the discussion and your assumption doesnt really make sense. The people on the discussion about the block specifically said that they didnt want a ban and endorsed an indefinate block. Even the admin that started that discussion stated that it wasnt for a ban and was for a block - I feel you have just been railroad into a position by Andrew and now that you have made the decision wont change it - your position seems illogical to me because no one has ever mentioned a ban.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==The Gold Heart Question== |
|||
:George, I wasnt on line much yesterday and will be away from my computer for most of today as well as I have family visiting. That issues would you like me to address.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Vintagekits, my advice is to request a full and thorough Arbcom case, so much has happened in your career here that is does need cold and calculated scrutiny - a laying bear of facts if you like. Then a few people can assess if you are of any value to the project rather than a braying bob. The strange behaviour of some very important Wikipedians yesterday in the threads concerning you has convinced me, you need to be examined only by the Arbcom. It will be unplesant for you - you have many wiki-faults, but are not alone in that - as I see it you are standing on the trapdoor with a noose around your neck, and the mob have their hands on the lever - the lever needs to he in the hands of a responsible few. That's my advice take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the issues which I would hope you would address are the comments and issues raised in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block Vintagekits indefinitely]] thread. A number of editors have commented, there and in the various alternatives which flowed out of that in the major heading. |
|||
{{hat}} |
|||
:Any specific ideas, comments, opinions that were raised there and statements you'd like to make. Someone's going to have to make a determination and close the various proposed community actions threads, and it's only fair if you have a chance to be heard and respond to the issues. |
|||
Could someone please tell me whether Vk is, in fact, just another of GH's numerous manifestations? (Also GH, as it appears you are not a nice person I hope it ain't true). [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I see Giano's comment above requesting an Arbcom case. That's probably premature at the moment - nobody has closed the community remedies threads, so for right now you're just indef blocked, not banned or otherwise restricted. I recommend that the community discussion be allowed to come to an end and then if you disagree then appeal any decision to Arbcom. That's purely procedural - I think Arbcom will want to wait until the community decides, so it wouldn't make sense to appeal to them before. Once there is a community decision of some sort then you should feel free to file an Arbcom appeal or ask for a case to be opened. |
|||
:If waiting 24 more hours while you have family over and are unavailable to comment here will help, I will post a request to the thread asking for no admins to close during that period, until you have a chance to respond. I believe there's no harm done to anyone by a decent wait - a week would be hard to justify, but another day (or even two) won't hurt the community or you in any way. |
|||
:[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::George, if you could that would be great. There is a [[Ireland vs. France 2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off|big game tonight]] and they will want to be brought out for that as well. I hope to put an hour aside tomorrow to get my thoughts down. Thanks. |
|||
---- |
|||
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></span> 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Lift the block== |
|||
: Vintagekits is ''not'' Gold Heart. Totally not. He's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Workshop#User:Gold_heart_Banned_from_Wikipedia_until_case.27s_end just a fan] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: If that is meant to mean what I think it is meant to mean then that is not eniterly fair. I made an open statement that however was harassing you off wiki was out of order and should stop. I have no evidence that it was GH but I made the statement on a thread that was used by GH and I stand by that statement still.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 11:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Good - because it was a dark shadow of suspicion at the back of my mind for yonks. I like Vk - but I also once liked GH I seem to recall till his stalking and manipulation etc came to light. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 08:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::OK, if you want to put it back, I can live with that. -- Sarah, even when I thought on many occasion you were wrong, and uncivil too, I still stood four square behind you. It seemed important at the time that we Irish should maybe stick together a bit better, and that is the very same reason why I supported Vintagekits, albeit then, and more so now, Irish Wikipedia is pretty much a lame duck in the bigger picture. As a consequence, it looks like Irish Wikipedia will not have an admin for years to come, and Scotland for instance has about forty admins. A truly sad state of affairs may I add. Also, I was not a stalker, period. Calling someone ''"stalker"'' seems to be the new way of saying FOAD. It's not a very nice name to be called, especially under certain circumstances. On the other hand I carry no ill feelings, but Wikipedia should not be used to make personal attacks against anyone, and I do mean anyone. I was a good editor, and am very proud of my edits, and my created articles. There have been lies told about me on Wikipedia, and elsewhere, and for the people who told them, it's on their conscience, if they have any. I never told lies on Wikipedia, and that makes me feel OK about everything. And if people must turn themselves into liars in order to triumph, wouldn't that be a very ''"Pyrrhic victory"''? |
|||
::::Like I said I have no evidence that you were harassing Alison off wiki - all I know is that Ally said she was being harassed. If I did find out that it was you I would be disgusted - no man should treat a woman in that manner and how should I put it "I would be seriously unimpressed"--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'd agree 100% with Vk on this; what Alison was subjected to is totally outside the pale - no excuses. Vk - I'm glad Ali confirms you aren't anyone's puppet! Should have guessed. Regards [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: ''"[[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive13#Proposing_Community_Ban_on_User:Gold_heart|... but Wikipedia should not be used to make personal attacks against anyone, and I do mean anyone.]]"'' Lawl! Try taking your own advice then - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Boo! |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
Given the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a ''tactic'' in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted ''before'' any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the ''real agenda'' of the block and ban lobby. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Topic ban solution == |
|||
::No, any debate about lifting the block will split any arguement in process and confuse things further, let one decision be made at a time. If he can't be mentored, and he can't have an Arbcom case then there is no point unblocking at any time. VK can post here and a hundred helpers can post where he wants things. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, I didn't ask for any "debate". I asked for the bad block to be lifted, given it's nature and context. I am still asking for the block to be lifted, first. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
What topic ban similar to what is proposed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:JoshuaZ_on_Daniel_Brandt here]. |
|||
::::That's my advice, take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Mentorship == |
|||
I should be allowed edit other articles where I cause no disruption and add to wikipedia.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:In light of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kittybrewster this], it is a reasonable suggestion.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] ([[User talk:Domer48|talk]]) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::In my opinion certainly not an unreasonable proposal. Just look at contributions made to boxing articles, a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face by not allowing this. [[User:BigDunc|BigDunc]] ([[User talk:BigDunc|talk]]) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Would you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*I would support VK being fully allowed back, '''if''' he proved himself first. That is three months trial, editing nothing but his boxing pages. He would not be permitted to create any new pages or edit any pages other than those boxing pages he has edited previously, or those which have no connection withthe Irish Troubles. He would be allowed to comment only on Wikipedia and policy pages that have no concern with the politics of any nation. For those three months probation he would be forbidden any contact with the Kittybrewster crowd, even by email, if they torment him, that may be a problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&curid=17005674&diff=207562163&oldid=207561454] - then an independent Admin ([[User: Lar]] springs to mind) could be appointed to address the situation. If VK uses anywhere on the site any obscene or seriously offensive language (in any language or spelling thereof) then he should be banned permanently (a list of such words could even be drawn up in advance). There should be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules half way through. After three months he is allowed to edit full and normally, although a topic ban on Irish political pages could still prevail. This is a very Draconian and severe solution, but people say he has been given chances before - he has never before been this severely curtailed before. He might even feel he would not rather not edit than be so curtailed, but if he is so keen to edit and wants a truly final chance he will accept. If he doesn't accept then leave him banned, he'll get no further sympathy from me. Whatever the outcome the problem is finally and irrevocably solved. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of the community accepting you being mentored, so there is little point in you agreeing/committing. Perhaps the ArbCom option above is the only venue left to determine if there is a way for you to continue to contribute. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, but suggest leaving the mentoring option just a little longer - people do change their minds - occasionaly. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The Mentorship option is acceptable. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would offer mentorship as part of any Arbitration decision, should a Request get to such a stage, in any event. I regret that those opposing mentorship currently appear to be too numerous for anything but a complete about face to bring about a consensus for it. I think 36 hours from my initial offer should be sufficient time to establish the communities position on it, so there is a little time yet. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Would that be a final, final chance? This has been decided and we are allowing VK to manipulate this dispute to re-open a closed debate. --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::No, he is not manipulating or negotiating anything, he does not have that right. He either takes this solution or leaves it. (The only minor modification I would accept to the above, would be he could create new pages, if the subject matter were full and publicly vetted, for conditions of the parole, before he created the page) He has been given second chances before, but never under such strict conditions, and they are strict. I don't think any editor has ever before been given such a harsh parole, but he has brought this on himself. I'm not sure he would be able to keep to it, so it's his chance to prove himself serious and us wrong, when he is good, he is very good....This parole makes sure he stay's good, and any trouble and he is out for good. I will write up the terms of the parole myself in unambiguous legal language if necessary, they can be posted at the top of his page and he can live with them or go! [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Completely unconnected question == |
|||
He's been given ''final'', final chances how many times before? He has been blocked over 20 times in the past, been caught recruiting meatpuppets, using socks abusively (including Giano's own Arbcom election vote), threatened editors, published someone's home address (twice!) and tried to pass it off as a joke; when indef blocked he has operated multiple sock accounts; and only the other day on this page was telling editors to "fuck off"... (anyone looking for that will find it was redacted by Giano). Rhetorical questions - would "chunt" be on this putative list of banned words? What other mispelt expletives? My opinion is no, he should not be allowed back - he's had '''many''' second chances and threw them back in the WP community's faces. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: I am under no illusions about him (I mention the spelling in the proposal above) this is a tying him up completely proposal, no ifs, no buts, so way outs. He either edits in a productive fashion of he goes. All the other chanvces he has previously had have given him too much leeway - this gives him none at all. He will find it very very hard, we should add sockpuppets to the conditions, one account only. I don't care how painful and restricting he finds it, as I have said, he either takes it or leaves it. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Like I said if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. As the Olympics are coming round the corner there is going to be a lot of boxing stuff that needs doing so I would like to be able to do that. |
|||
Is Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I don't have a problem with a restrictive topic ban at all but I would like it to be an exclusive one rather than an inclusive one. e.g. I would still like to be able to edit [[The Bhoys from Seville|football articles]] or articles about [[James Morrison (fiddler)|music]] or [[Mac Diarmada railway station|railway stations]] or [[Creggan, Derry|geography]] or [[Sligo Jail|places of interest]] so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics. |
|||
: [http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12183_5684216,00.html Sky Sports 1.] [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Than you Rockpocket, but I on a computer wired not to let me look at anything pleasurable (probably why it permits Wikipedia) could you have a quick look for me, I think I have a few hours yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: Oh. Its being shown live at 2am on [[Sky Sports 1]]: |
|||
:'' Live Big Fight Special in HD. Manny Pacquiao v Miguel Angel Cotto. All the action from the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, as Pacquiao steps up a division to challenge for Cotto's WBO Welterweight title. Pacquiao's last fight was the second-round knockout of Ricky Hatton in a light-welterweight contest in May, and he can further add to his reputation as arguably the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world should he take the belt from Cotto.'' |
|||
::: As far as I can tell, it is not being shown on any free-to-air channel. So it depends whether Giano's household subsidizes Mr Murdoch or not ;) [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well actually we do, purely for the children's educational purposes you understand. In fact, it's purely for the children's educational purposes that I fiddled with the parental controls of this computer and now can't reverse them, this is the problem with passwords when you seldom spell the same word twice two days running. Thank you for that. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Block and associated discussion== |
|||
I think that most people will agree that prior to me being blocked I wasn't causing any disruption and that the only issue I had in the months before my block was the spat with Rockpocket - who since then has said that he (incorrectly) thought I was harassing his family and that is probably the reason he was gunning for me at that time. I would just like to go back to the way I was editing in the weeks prior to my block. Like I say - just check the edit history.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I have closed the discussion at the [[WP:ANI|incident noticeboard]] regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the [[WP:ARBCOM|arbitration committee]] review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to [[WP:RFAR|requests for arbitration]] for you. |
|||
:I was asked by Giano to comment. I haven't mulled this over in great depth but, while acknowledging that there is a widely held perception that VK has been given "final chances" before, and at least some perception that VK has "exhausted the communities patience", the plan that Giano has laid out seems quite tightly bound and intolerant of even minor missteps, so is likely to be monitorable and enforceable. VK's boxing contributions are good, and if he can be confined to them (or at least confined far away from anything to do with politics in any shape or form) with fairly little effort, that seems a net win on balance, so I'd tend to support giving this a try. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think Giano's idea of 'restricting' Vk to boxing articles & having him give up his sock-puppets, are reasonable constraints. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: I was kinda wondering when VK was going to make a break for freedom! :) All that kerfuffle about the userpage, the socking, the boxing stuff - yeah. Anyways - I'm certainly not averse to some sort of parole system being put in place ''yet again'' but it would need to be seriously curtailing this time as VK has a habit of pushing the boat out once he gets leverage. But yeah, 24 blocks and kinda sorta standing :) I'd like to see quite a bit more community input before anything happens, though, maybe even through some of the folks on [[WP:IWNB]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Came on to post a response now. Is it too late.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It aint too late. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well it looks like [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] has now closed the discussion.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yep, it's closed. But ya got the option of requesting a review by [[WP:RFAR]], per Sera's above instructions. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Take a peek at [[User talk:Rockpocket#Long discussion|here]], another option. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I do '''not'''. He is an unpleasant editor who has been given and squandered many chances.--[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS Can "friends" cease protecting VK? If he makes a threat to me (or others) do not remove it. |
|||
:PS: The RFAR route, is much less risky (of course). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maxburgoyne&diff=152242843&oldid=152242444#Referencing You mean being as unpleasant as this?]. Or maybe like this where I requested that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maxburgoyne&diff=171210967&oldid=170525012#Please_read_this you stopped canvassing] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Tuffins this AfD!] People in glasshouses shouldnt go throwing stones.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::VK, I strongly advise you to take this whole matter to Arbitration. I repeat, your value and worth to the project needs to be formally and quietly assessed by the Arbs. If you are concerned, and I think you should be, RLevse can be asked to recuse, banning you in an hour while Europe slept was totally wrong and biased all further debate on ANI. I am unsure if you should remain or not, but I truly beleive what I said here in the now famously oversighted edit [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=325449650] <small>(outing indeed - no one was fooled by that excuse)</small>. You need and deserve a fair rational hearing, and that is probably the only way you will get one. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Pacman, WBO welterweight champion == |
|||
I blanked a comment and took advice, hardly "nasty". The second example is, if anything, evidence of your overbearing sarcasm. Try harder. No doubt, you will be able to list all my suspensions, threats and use of foul language. Keep smiling --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Pacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Maxburgoyne|Maxburgoyne]], he is certainly nowhere near as unpleasant as you seem to be. Your userpage sneering at the vast bulk of Wiki editors tells me all I need to know about you. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== The Third Road == |
|||
Vk. Thanks for your email. I have been traveling and without internet access for almost a month, hence the lack of a reply. |
|||
Hi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both [[wikt:shithouse#Adjective|shithouse]] because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. |
|||
I think its best that I completely forgo offering my thoughts on this "bid for freedom". My opinion matters no more than anyone else's; suffice to say I would not protest a change in your current status if there was significant support for it. Things have finally settled down for me now, and I would rather keep it that way by not drawing another target on my chest. |
|||
Come over to [[Wikisource]] for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) |
|||
If the community decides to welcome you back under Giano's conditions, then good luck to you. I hope if, in the unlikely event we cross paths, we can do so in a civil manner. If not, then I guess we'll continue to see you around in various guises anyway. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Wikisource ''needs'' someone with your passion. [[s:Wikisource:Sports]] doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create [[s:Wikisource:Boxing]] We have a few poor quality works in [[s:Category:Boxing]]. |
|||
== Current IBO Middleweight Champion == |
|||
As an example, I have set up [[s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu]] and [[s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu]], where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. [[s:Page:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu/81|Thomas Smallwood]]. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the [[Optical character recognition|OCR]] errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. |
|||
Hello VK. Have you any idea as to who's the current title holder? Is it [[Raymond Joval]] or [[Daniel Geale]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Geale is - Joval was forced to vacate/stripped because he failed to defend.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks Vk. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: No problem - all in a days work. Hopefully you will support my propose that I can come back editing so long as I stay away from editing Irish political articles - that way I can sort out those boxing articles that are in a mess.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If you'll stay away from the Irish political articles & cease creating/using sock-puppets? You'll have my support. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Not quite that simple, he has to be firmly regulated, if he is to edit again. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Firmly regulated? Whatcha mean? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
see above! [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::'Scuse my pugilistic cluelessness - but what does "pound for pound" mean? I know boxers are dived into weight classes but I don't see what it means re the table below...(Checked the link - not much help there!)[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. |
|||
=='''[[Irish people|Irish]] [[Boxing]] [[Pound for Pound]] List'''== |
|||
After a few months, you can then appeal your Wikipedia ban either to Arbcom or to the community. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
! Rank !! Fighter !! Record !! Weight class !! Titles held at present |
|||
|- |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|1 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[John Duddy]] || 24-0 (17 KO) || [[Middleweight]] ||{{small|[[International Boxing Association |IBA middleweight champion]]}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|2 || {{flagicon|Munster}} [[Andy Lee (boxer)|Andy Lee]] || 15-1 (12 KO) || [[Super Middleweight]] ||{{small|[[BUI |Irish Super middleweight champion]]}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|3 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Paul McCloskey]] || 16-0 (7 KO) || [[Light Welterweight]] ||{{small|[[IBF |IBF International light welterweight champion]]}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|4 ||{{flagicon|Leinster}} [[Bernard Dunne]] || 25-1 (14 KO) || [[Super Bantamweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|5 || {{flagicon|Munster}} [[Matthew Macklin]] || 21-2 (16 KO) || [[Middleweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|6 || {{flagicon|Leinster}} [[James Moore (boxer)|James Moore]] || 15-0 (10 KO) || [[Light Middleweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|7 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Neil Sinclair]] || 31-6 (24 KO) || [[Light Middleweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|8 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Brian Magee]] || 30-3-1 (19 KO) || [[Super middleweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|9 || {{flagicon|Leinster}} [[Oisin Fagan]] || 21-5 (13 KO) || [[Light Welterweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|10 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Andrew Murray (boxer)|Andrew Murray]] || 11-0 (5 KO) || [[Light Welterweight]] ||{{small|[[BUI |Irish Light Welterweight champion]]}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|11 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Stephen Haughian]] || 13-1 (5 KO) || [[Welterweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|12 || {{flagicon|Leinster}} [[Michael Gomez]] || 35-8 (24 KO) || [[Super featherweight]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|13 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Martin Lindsay (boxer)|Martin Lindsay]] || 11-0 (4 KO) || [[Featherweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|14 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Jason McKay]] || 19-2 (5 KO) || [[Super middleweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|15 || {{flagicon|Connacht}} [[Henry Coyle (boxer)|Henry Coyle]] || 6-1 (6 KO) || [[Light Middleweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|16 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Kevin McBride ]] || 34-6-1 (29 KO) || [[Heavyweight]] || |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|17 || {{flagicon|Leinster}} [[Jim Rock]] || 29-4 (9 KO) || [[Middleweight]] ||{{small|[[BUI |Irish middleweight champion]]}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|align="center"|18 || {{flagicon|Ulster}} [[Martin Rogan]] || 10-0 (5 KO) || [[Heavyweight]] || |
|||
|} |
|||
:Please do come over. We are very friendly and only bite if you ask us very nicely. ;-) Gotta to be beat all that poetry stuff that some love! We need more sport, things of real consequence. More than happy to show you the ropes, and it is great for building up resources and links to be used here. [[User:Billinghurst|billinghurst]] ([[User talk:Billinghurst|talk]]) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Surviving Page being protected== |
|||
Congratulations Vk. A request for your page to be ''protected'', was rejected. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Image copyright problem with [[:Image:Sligo Benbulben 2.jpg]]== |
|||
==Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions== |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|32px|left|Image Copyright problem]] |
|||
'''Hi Vintagekits!'''<br /> |
|||
We thank you for uploading [[:Image:Sligo Benbulben 2.jpg]], but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright]] very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|copyright tag]], it may be [[WP:DELETE|deleted]] by an [[WP:ADMIN|Administrator]]. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a '''[[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|copyright tag]]''' to the [[Help:Image page|image description page]]. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia. |
|||
As a party in ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]]'' arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Amendment_1:_New_remedy:_Discretionary_Sanctions|here]]'''. |
|||
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|media copyright questions page]]. Thanks so much for your cooperation.<br /><small>This message is from a [[WP:BOT|robot]].</small> --[[User:John Bot III|John Bot III]] ([[User talk:John Bot III|talk]]) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:As I am blocked I cant do notin about sortin dis out. Can someone please sort it. ta.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: As it's your own pic, what license do you want to release it under? GFDL okay? - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I'm dont know the differences between the different licences. Put whatever on it please.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I'm going for [[GFDL]], so. It's the most 'free', IMO - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{done|'''sorted'''}} ;) - it's actually now [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sligo_Benbulben_2.jpg on Commons], so any editor (hint, hint) can use it on other projects such as putting it on [[ga:Contae Shligigh]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
''For the Arbitration Committee'' |
|||
== Simple English Wikipedia == |
|||
'''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup>|<sup>[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]</sup> 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, an account with your name was created on Simple English Wikipedia earlier. Was it you? If it wasn't, you may like to usurp it to prevent further imposters. Cheers, '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'') 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Not sure its me mate - got a link and I will check it out.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: VK - I got it all sorted out with the 'crat over there & the vandal accounts are now renamed. Just sign in and grab your own account and you'll be fine - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 15:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== VK is blocked indefinitely, not retired == |
|||
==Harry Tuffins article== |
|||
[[User:Maxburgoyne|Maxburgoyne]] hasnt really been my buddy since I had an article about his local shop deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Tuffins this AfD]. |
|||
Why is the tagging of his user page with [[:template:indefblocked|{indefblocked}]] even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
During that that AfD he canvassed a number of editors and one of them that !voted on the AfD recreated the article [[User:Blue73/Harry Tuffins|here]]. Which I understand is not allowed. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If the blocking admin did not put the tag up, other editors should not. It is unnecessary [[WP:BEAR|bear poking]]. This user has contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia; he may be blocked indefinitely but we have not shut the door behind them, and adding a tag that queues their userpage for deletion like we do to mere vandals is insensitive at best. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::This is the same kind of logic that allowed him to be 'retired' for the past 6 months when he wasn't, allowing him to flip off the countless people who rightly pointed that fact out, hilariously, even Giano. VK's feelings are paramount I guess, plain common sense and consideration for other users has no place here, as usual. If the template serves no purpose, then delete it. How it is in anyway usefull to Wikipedia as a whole to suggest to all visitors to this page that VK is not indef blocked, but has merely wandered off into the wilderness and could return at any time, is utterly beyond me. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I am not "nasty" and do not bear grudges but I do have little time for bullies. There is nothing snide about my user page and i sad it was interpreted that way. I concede that I am intrigued by the pooterish self-obsession of some editors. Finally, thank you for the information on the revival of Harry Tuffins - I had no idea! Such is my influence that, unlike some, I hve no need of sock-puppets and threats. --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::And not that it even matters, but Beeblebrox was the admin who originally revoked VK's talk page privelages on 12 November, and he was the one who then placed the indef blocked tag here one hour after VK was indef blocked the same day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVintagekits&action=historysubmit&diff=325376288&oldid=324924104], which Rlevse the final blocker has never seemingly objected to. It was only in the subsequent intervention hours later by you Xeno that suddenly this tag is apparently not appropriate. If none of you admins can agree as to how the template should be used, that's fine, but don't pretend like this convention of 'must be placed by the blocker' has any legitimacy at all. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, this issue perhaps needs to be clarified at the appropriate venue to try and get folks on the same page. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Max, I think your interest in Vk is seen as vindictive since he had your shop deleted; as I pointed out your user-page is an attack on a vast bulk of Wiki-editors. I suggest you remove your comments there and recuse yourself from attacking an editor with whom you are in dispute. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It's just VK's best buddies trying to be as disruptive as him, I bet that within a few months they will all be going down the same line as he is. Being sensitive to VK is a laugh, since when was he ever sensitive? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink">Jeni</span>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It is not my shop! An attack on "the vast bulk of wiki-editors"? Just the Pooters --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 06:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vintagekits&diff=325444792&oldid=325444506] I am not VK's best buddy; in fact I barely know him. However, I do not think treating a long-time contributor like a garden-variety troll or vandal is appropriate - no matter who that contributor may be. Adding the "indef blocked" template serves no constructive purpose and if the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have added it themself. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Pooters are used for catching small insects, arachnids, crustaceans, and any unidentified wriggly things, collectively known in the scientific community as 'bugs'. By definition, these bugs are very small, and in addition to that many of them sting, bite or ooze at you when feeling threatened. In short, they can be difficult to catch, which is bad news for scientists and children (who frequently like to catch bugs, either to examine, or eat). I cannot imagine, Max, why you think the bulk of Wiki-editors are Pooters. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::*jeni, it is just that sort of negative and uninformed comment that has caused most of the problems which surround VK and irritated him so. If you read some of the diffs surrounding this case, you will know that far from being one of VK's best buddies, I am merely one of many that want to see things brought to a satisfactory and happy conclusion for all. This may be a happy conclusion for you, but it is not happy or even satifactory for many others. I am not re-hashing the debate that has been had, but if you think this will be the conclusion and the end of Vintagekits then you are indeed uninformed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: Heh, [[Pooter|she's right!]] :) - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::* Xeno is right. Regardless of the correctness of the indef block (I am in two minds about it myself), dancing on someone's grave is looked on dimly both IRL ''and'' on Wikipedia. Stop it, please. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<span style="color:black">Black Kite</span>]]</b> 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Interesting pooter that guy has, what? (excuse the juvenile mind but it's what keeps one young:) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::* Ditto. I was just about to say the same thing. Grave dancing is not welcomed. Our goal is to help contributors, not push them over the edge and celebrate when they fail. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:MaxYoung03.jpg|right|280px|Max the Younger]] |
|||
:::*I'm guessing none of you then give a monkeys about the people who are utterly confused when they arrive here and are greeted with the impression VK has just wandered off, or were similarly concerned about the treatment of the dozens of people who were greeted with such sensitity here when they arrived because of one or other of VK's edits to find a 'retired' editor was more than active, and duly commented as such. None of these people seem to be in your considerations at all. This is supposed to be a community, where basic things like notifications of status have a pretty obvious and logical purpose. Pandering to the sensitivites of people blocked after one of the largest shows of community displeasure I have ever seen for an established contributor, is utterly secondary to plain and simple common sense tbh. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You may wish to read, [[Diary of a Nobody|''The Diary of a Nobody'']] by George and Weedon Grossmith. Charles Pooter wrote a diary of his mundane life self-centeredly assuming that his views would be of interest to others. Wiktionary has a page [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pooterism]. I do not think the bulk of editors are equally Pooterish, just those who share their interests. Frankly, I find bloggers equally odd. It is not a judgment; rather it is bemusement. Finally, why are you so defensive? If you are - and I suspect you are - a balanced person with a rich life, why do you care so much? --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::*The first thing I do to check an editors activity level is look at their contributions page. And the first thing you are presented with at [[Special:Contributions/Vintagekits]] is the fact that they are indefinitely blocked. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I'm guessing that's what most experienced editors do (although its a bit of a fiddle to do even for experienced users for the likes of Giano with his multiple redirected user pages), but Wikipedia is not made up of just experienced users as you well know. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Let the administrators decide. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Which ones? The ones who placed the tag, or the ones who removed it? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::If necessary, contact the [[User: Jimbo Wales|administrator-in-chief]]. If one wishs Vk exiled, one shouldn't be risking a block, over Vk's userpage. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Considering Jimbo once said that if he weren't American, he would have loved to be born British, I think that's an <s>excellent</s> crazy suggestion. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh, for crying out loud, somebody who cares should just ask Beeblebrox if he wants [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVintagekits&action=historysubmit&diff=325376288&oldid=324924104 his original placement of the tag] restored or not. And regardless of the response, move along afterwards. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and ''not'' screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:An indef block or ban, is a little heavy. A 1-hour block would likely do the trick, IMHO. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Good luck S777. I promise to leave VK's page alone unless, of course, I am dragged back by a personal comment. Woof, woof! --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 06:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I wish I was as cute! I note your comment about his blank look. No doubt you have an instintive affection for terrierists. Sorry!--[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:For crying out loud, it is just a silly little tag. Just let it be people. The presence or lack of tag doesn't do anything to change the status quo. |
|||
Going back to VK's original comment, I was under the impression that a user's own page was their own for preliminary projects etc, maybe this is all Harry Tuffins is to me?? Also, will you accept that I wanted to comment on the AfD as I explained at the time. (By the way, I still believe it deserves to have its own article). --[[User:Blue73|Fuelboy]] ([[User talk:Blue73|talk]]) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Why so many want to edit war over a tag is beyond me, but to suggest edit warring should result in an indefinite block and formal ban is beyond ridiculous. It isn't even remotely that important. There are a thousand ways people could better spend their time 1) arguing over the tag and 2) worrying what other people think about it. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, Thaddeus, it's not just a tag -- it's a tag that says "Hey, everybody, come delete me!"--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: And frankly, anyone who even thinks about deleting it will get a [[WP:WHEEL|trout]] followed by an [[WP:BLOCK|even bigger trout]]. Just ... don't. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<span style="color:black">Black Kite</span>]]</b> 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
''"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance"''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Replaceable fair use Image:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg == |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|32px|left|Replaceable fair use]] |
|||
Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg]]'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]], but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|first non-free content criterion]] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: |
|||
:I would rather it stayed as is, if reality and common sense isn't going to win the day. The sooner that uninformed readers learn about the various idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia, like the running joke non-status of tags, the better for them. Coming here and finding a red-link won't help them on this learning path one bit. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
# Go to [[:Image:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg|the media description page]] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''. |
|||
:Plus deletion removes some of the evidence from those users seeking answers to the question as to why VK is blocked indefinitely from editing the site (presuming that is that they get that far in their knowledge quest, and have passed the first hurdle in knowing not to trust any tag they see on a random users page and to instead delve behind the scenes, WP:CSI style) [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
# On [[Image talk:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg|the image discussion page]], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. |
|||
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about [[WP:POINT|making silly points]] [[WP:BATTLE|in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia]]. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license]], or by taking a picture of it yourself. |
|||
==Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?== |
|||
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before [[13 July]] [[2006]]), per our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content policy]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. <small>Do you want to [[Template:Bots#Message notification opt out|opt out]] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> [[User:Rettetast|Rettetast]] ([[User talk:Rettetast|talk]]) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from <s>their</s> Vintagekits' desired state should be indefinitely blocked. Simple as that. This kind of bullying is unacceptable and makes clear the kind of abuse this editor was suffering. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Just one question, why are some of ya describing Vk as ''they''? Vk is a ''him''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: See [[Singular they]]. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Phew, I thought ya'll were describing Vk as having 'multiple personalities'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Not appropriate. == |
|||
This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah Chillum, you are in error; VK is not banned but blocked, a subtle difference I agree, but a nevertheless a difference. The problem is that all debate that lead to the blocking, before and after, is null and void. The reason for this is that the Arbitrator and those few that quickly arrived in the night and pushed the block through in an hour were in error by their unnecessary haste. Therefore all debate that followed was biased, poisoned and influenced by the fact that an Arbitator has already declared him guilty. This is the reason I want VK to take the matter to Arbcom (RLevse if he is still around, recused). Then, at least we will have a fair and impartial result, otherwise the bickering here is unlikely to cease. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></span> 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I've currently 'no clues' as to Vk's status. Is he retired, banned, indef-blocked, a victim of abduction, re-programed, etc? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::He added the retired tag some months ago, and resumed editing with the tag in place. He is currently blocked indefinitely. Personally, at this point, unless the editor files a request for lifting the block with the ArbCom soon, I would favor turning the user page into a redirect to the talk page, and then full protecting the redirect. It would allow someone who really wanted to see the user page history to still do so, but it would take a bit of pointed effort to do so. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okie Dokie. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::The talk page history is viewable. If this editor chooses to retire and to post something on their page accordingly that's within their discretion. The vandalism and campaign of attacks against this editor, who's already been blocked indefinitely, need to stop. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Which edits were [[WP:Vandalism]]? — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Have ''you'' read the history CoM? His (latest) 'retirement' was 3 months, 800 edits, 5 blocks and 30 edit wars ago. Giano is just playing his usual role, VK is indef blocked, defacto banned, and will remain so barring a miracle. Still, new arbcom, new direction and all that. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::So let him go quietly as he chooses. There's no need to rub salt in his wounds or to stick unsightly templates on his usertalk page. It looks like a vendetta in a dispute that you and those siding with you already won. There's no policy restricting people from retiring or unretiring. Just leave him be as you would want to be treated had you been the one to receive such a harsh sanction. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Why is this such a problem for you Mick? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can't get that from the numerous statements above? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Alright. New idea, everyone out, this is a dead horse argued on the page of a non-present editor, but if you insist on continuing to discuss it, do it on [[WP:ANI]] or I can sacrifice my own [[user talk:Tznkai|talk page]] to the task.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that it should be discussed elsewhere. Vintagekits' page should be restored to the state he put it until there is a consensus directing otherwise. The standard policy seems clear in favoring respect for other editors even when they've been sanctioned and to allow editors to retire and unretire at their discretion. This looks like a disruptive campaign of antagonism by partisans who aren't satisfied with the indefinite block they already won. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]"). |
|||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). |
|||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. |
|||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==RfD nomination of [[:'The Great White Hope'.]]== |
|||
I have nominated {{la|'The Great White Hope'.}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#'The Great White Hope'.|the discussion page]]. Thank you. — <span style="font-family:gill sans">[[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]]</span> [[User_talk:The Man in Question|<small>(in question)</small>]] 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for feedback == |
|||
Alright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... |
|||
Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House |
|||
I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. |
|||
Thanks again. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.203.209.68|84.203.209.68]] ([[User talk:84.203.209.68|talk]]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Unreferenced BLPs== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] Hello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]] alerting you that '''4''' of the articles that you created are tagged as[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources| Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons]]. The [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure [[WP:VERRIFY|verifiability]], all biographies should be based on [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable sources]]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current ''[[:Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:All_unreferenced_BLPs}}]]'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: |
|||
# [[Robenílson Vieira de Jesus]] - <small>{{findsources|Robenílson Vieira de Jesus}}</small> |
|||
# [[Georgian Popescu]] - <small>{{findsources|Georgian Popescu}}</small> |
|||
# [[Asylbek Talasbaev]] - <small>{{findsources|Asylbek Talasbaev}}</small> |
|||
# [[Cathal Boylan]] - <small>{{findsources|Cathal Boylan}}</small> |
|||
Thanks!--[[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Mark McAllister]]== |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|48px|]] |
|||
The article [[Mark McAllister]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]  because of the following concern: |
|||
:<b>Non-notable footballer who fails [[WP:ATHLETE]] as the Irish leagues are not fully professional. Also fails notability and verifiability due to lack of sources.</b> |
|||
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Mark McAllister|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. The [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion process]] can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> -- [[User:BigDom|<span style="color:#990033">Big</span>]][[User talk:BigDom|<span style="color:#3BB0FF"><small>Dom</small></span>]] 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:The Lying Down Game]] == |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[The Lying Down Game]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg== |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
'''PLEASE NOTE:''' |
|||
* I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. |
|||
* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. |
|||
* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests&create=Request here] to file an un-delete request. |
|||
* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page. |
|||
*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off [[User:DASHBot/F5|here]] and leave a message on [[User talk:Tim1357|my owner's talk page]]. |
|||
Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Clothing store listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Clothing store]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Clothing store'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 7#Clothing store|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otters want attention]])</sup> 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpg == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Kieran Nugent.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Kieran Nugent.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 19#File:Kieran Nugent.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock request== |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. | decline=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, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
*#understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
*#will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. In particular, you should see [[WP:NOTTHEM]] and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before ([[User talk:Vintagekits/terms]]). See also comments at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=404433983#Vintagekits_seeks_unblock ANI discussion about this request]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
See discussion at [[WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:So far the few who have participated are unanimous in opposing an unblock. Doing this on Christmas is probably not going to win any sympathy. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Can I just point out for the record that VK is '''not''' currently socking, nor has he been - to my knowledge - since his indef block - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::In that case, I've no probs with unblocking. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I note the SPI on [[User:MFIreland|MFIreland]] being suspected as a sock, has been closed per lack of 'diff's for evidence. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::If by mentioning socking you intend to imply that the [[WP:OFFER|standard offer]] applies, I wish you would just say so. The conversation at ANI is not about socking, and he was not blocked for socking. The SPI case did not find evidence of socking. Fine. I'm willing to believe that, it doesn't change my position one bit as I wasn't previously aware of it anyway. The offer is just a suggested course of action, it does not apply in every case. I am a big fan of it myself but I don't believe this is a situation where it should be invoked. Even if it was VK continues to blame others for his own blocking, showing no signs of intending to change his behavior. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:And the few users who do support unblocking you have indicated a rather elaborate set of restrictions, including a topic ban from all articles related to Irish or British politics and all articles related to The Troubles, and supervision by a mentor that will not be chosen by you. In the interest of moving the conversation forward it seems appropriate to ask if you would even agree to such restrictions as a condition of being unblocked. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed, stick with the Boxing articles. Leave the political stuff to others. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:NOTTHEM]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Don't quote stupid, ridiculous essays and links to me! Explain why this is acceptable [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Counter-revolutionary#Unblock] and an unblock of Vk is not? Are you even aware of the facts? I very nuch doubt it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:If "opponents" have "behaved in far worse fashion" then that is an argument to block or chastise them, not to unblock VK. I will support appropriate measures against "opposing" editors to minimize disruption when those are proven with diffs. Let's address that on ANI as an independent issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. We don't need to find sparring partners. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">talk</span>]] </b> 11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*Get hold of Alison then, and ask her for some explanations of her behaviour here, I am enjoying a pleasant and relaxed holiday, to which I am hurriedly returning, and leaving the sleezy mire of hypocrisy which I have found here while looking in briefly. Disgraceful and disgusting exhibition of double standards. I have never seen such gross hyppocrisy from so called admins here before. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Um, is "hypocrisy" aimed at me? You realise I had no involvement with the unblock of Counter-revolutionary? Also, I think this is another instance where supporters of an editor vocally and even aggressively trying to defend them in their absence is, if anything, counter-productive. If VK makes a serious unblock request (which you're welcome to help him formulate), ''that'' would merit lengthy discussion. Discussing the now-declined request this much merely prejudices any future request. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Eh, it's Giacomo. Everything he disagrees with is proof of Wikipedia's moral decline & hypocrisy. Best to just ignore him. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You know what would be totally awesome? If we used Vintagekits' talk page to talk to and about Vintagekits, and not each other! Vintagekits, there are three audiences that will be reviewing your block request. People who know you and are inclined to help you out, people who know you and are disinclined to help you out, and people who don't know you at all. If you even appear to place any of the blame for your block on someone else's shoulders, that last group will not help you. Its just the way it is around here.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:With unblock requests worded like the one under discussion here, standard procedure is to decline the request. If he's serious about being unblocked, he is free to submit a properly-worded unblock request. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Far from ignoring the multitude of reason for my various blocks I am fully aware of them and hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. My indefinate block was ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept. When the remainder of the world awoke they were basically told it was too late. |
|||
*Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. |
|||
*Do I understand what I have been blocked for, yes. But I also understand that there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished and many have shown their faces here already. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. |
|||
*will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion is enough to prove what I have said above is true. |
|||
*will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. |
|||
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Well that sounds a little more like an unblock request, though you should probably address the old [[User talk:Vintagekits/terms]] specifically since that came up in the recent ANI discussion. When you're ready, use the appropriate unblock request template, and someone should then start a new thread on [[WP:AN]]. Unfortunately the starting of an ANI discussion in relation to your recent request may have poisoned the well a bit, so you may have to work extra hard to convince people to have you back. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:A friendly word of advice: In such an unblock request, don't say ''anything'' about other editors. It will, ''for sure'', result in an "unblock declined". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I think what's being sought, is an apology for being un-civil (the colour languages on talkpages) & prior to your indef-block, the usage of socks. Plus a promise to do neither again. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::The second time VK was blocked for incivility, back in February 2007, he solemnly promised to "avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=prev&oldid=109541190] He's been blocked 20 times for personal attacks since then, not to mention the edit warring blocks. Following many of those blocks he's promised to reform. But he is who he is, and at this point it'd be foolish to assume he's capable of change, no matter how sincere his promises may be. See [[The Scorpion and the Frog]]. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">talk</span>]] </b> 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why the fuck should VK apologise for the "usage of socks"? When was the last time he socked? It certainly wasn't anything to do with his last block was it? VK has certainly got it half right though, you only have to look at the history of the now disgraced admin who blocked him last time, who clearly had it in for VK to such an extent that he was busy gathering villagers with pitchforks to ban VK while ignoring that the article that caused the problems had a BLP violation in that his death was completely unsourced! And isn't it funny how two things I've taken to ANI recently have had little to no input, the no input being an IP editor who violates BLP with virtually every single edit they make. But VK posts an unblock on what should be a quiet day of the year and people are there in the blink of an eye, it would seem keeping VK off Wikipedia is far more important than upholing BLP round here... <span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">2 lines of K</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></span> 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why should he? Well, how badly does he want to edit? Editing here is a privilege, not a right. And blaming others for getting blocked will accomplish nothing, so I'm trying to imagine how your comments are likely to help the blockee in this case. As to the other items you mention, I'll take a look, but IP's can't be given lengthy blocks except in limited circumstances. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh just grovel to them VK, crawl on your hands and knees shouting "''I'm nout but a thick bog peasant, please kind sirs let me edit, I'll be ever so good and brown my nose''" I rather think that is what is required. Were you pretending to be a fine upstanding English gentleman, then of course you would be aplauded and welcomed back, even if you had been "abusing multiple accounts and using threatening behaviour" all behaviour seemingly taught on the playing fields of Eton. It looks to me like you are perceived to be the wrong nationality and type. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::How badly does he want to edit? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*About as badly as [[User:Counter-revolutionary]], one of his old prime-agressors, who has just been welomed back after a two year block for all forms of deporable behaviour. It seems there is one rule for the Brits and one for the Irish. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*Yeh, a lot of us Yanks have it in for the Irish while we love the British (guess which one we fought two wars against). ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh I had no idea, that decisions solely up to you "Yanks." I thought this was an internationally collaborative project. Silly me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And how does a baseless accusation of anti-Irish bias aid in that collaboration? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*The unblock of the other user looks questionable, and you're free to follow the guy's edits and see if he misbehaves, and then take it to the admins. None of that has anything to do with O'Vintagekits, though. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I support Vintagekits return to productive contributing. Under some restrictions perhaps for a couple of months to help him settle back in and on a short rope as regards rudeness to other contributors, all he has to do is to be polite or be blocked again. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*That seems fair, provided he stops playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. |
|||
Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("''The actually block was malicious in the first place''", "''there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished''"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate ''why'' your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I dont really want to focus on this as it is exactly the type of negativity that I want to avoid but do you agree that there are a band (orcastrated or not) who would not wish to see my return to wiki no matter what I said. Lets not kid ourselves here eh!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I expect there are editors that consider your bridges well and truly burnt, and no matter what you say now will be unlikely to support your unblocking. But you might consider ''why'' some people feel that way (hint: the 31 prior blocks may have something to do with it) and instead try to convince those who are willing to give you another chance that you know how to avoid reaching 32. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Thank you Rockpocket, I think we will both agree that VK was a thorn in many sides and I will conceed that when in drink he could be objectionable. However, as he says "''Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures.''" I know that his RL responsibilities have increased and with them his sense of responsibility. Does one punish the adult for the sins of the child? returning to that punishment, the reasons many were unhapy with his block was becase it was most defiitely as VK says hurriedly "ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept." I have never before or since seen such a hurried indeff, in one time zone. Regardless of if you like it or not, VK was indeffed while Ireland was asleep. Now that his old adversaris are all unblocked, '''My view is that comon justice demands the lifting of this block'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: But irrespective of whether the indef was hurried through or not, the fact remains that there was a good reason the initial block was placed. Few, if any, of the editors who argued against the nature of the indef took issue with that. Vk-with-added-responsibilities said he would be happy to answer queries. So I have four before offering an opinion on the merits of his request. |
|||
::::#Do you think it is acceptable to refer to another editor, completely unprovoked, as a "fucking arsehole" or an "ego maniac"? |
|||
::::#Should editors who repeatedly or persistently use bilious language in personal attacks or in reference to other editors be welcome in our community? |
|||
::::#Pursuant to your answer above, why? |
|||
::::#If you were unblocked and used such language again in reference to another editor, should this block be immediately reinstated? |
|||
:::: Thanks, [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. |
|||
Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. |
|||
Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. |
|||
Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. |
|||
Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them.|decline=At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per [[WP:OFFER]] or to email BASC. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
:*Here's the problem: At the recent ANI discussion, most users were opposed to you being unblocked. The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor. I asked above if you would be willing to agree to these conditions and I don't see an answer anywhere. You have a few more supporters here now, but another discussion will be warranted if we are to seriously consider unblocking you. I don't see any point to initiating said discussion until you indicate whether or not you would be willing to accept such restrictions. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::It's quite apparent (at the moment) that if/when Vk is unblocked, another ANI community review will occur. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|side conversation}} |
|||
::the problem with that is, were similar restrictions imposed on his adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks - are you seeking to bias the Troubles debates and pages? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Giano, your backhanded accusation of bad faith is really not going to help the situation. I'm sure you are aware of [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I'm not saying VK has to agree to these terms, I'm saying he should answer the querstion of whether he would be willing to agree to them or not. If the answer is no, then we know before re-starting the discussion that that particular option is off the table. That's all, there is no conspiracy, just a simple request for clarification of a point that has already come up in these discussions. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Please don't quote these ridiculous [[WP-THINGS]] to me because I never read them as they are usually written by Admins atemptimg to justify their own bad behaviour. I can assure you I meant nothing "backhanded," in fact, my meaning was quite obvious. You have allowed back his adversaries (who committed worse "crimes") without a murmer of dissent; now, just get on and unblock VK who has, unlike them, promised to mend his ways. It's begining to look like a huge bias. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I haven't personally allowed anyone back in. I don't even know who you are talking about and I don't care to find out either. We are discussing VKs possible unblock. Some other user being unblocked by some other admin is a separate matter, and has abcolutely nothing to do with the simple question I am asking for an answer to. This bias you speak of, as it applies to me anyway, is purely a product of your imagination. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you have not bothered to avail yourself of the facts pertenent to this case perhaps you sould not be commenting here at all. Such ignorance is worryingly common amongst Admins keen to have their names seen here, there and everywhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have to wonder, at this point, if Giaco is actually trying to sabotage VK's attempt to get unblocked. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Your wonderings are of very little value. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{small|My comments are every bit as valuable as yours. But thanks for the non-denial denial :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
::::::This entire conversation is of little value at this point, all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to a question, and you have decided to drag imaginary nationalist conspiracies into it. I don't care one bit if VK is Irish, English, Iranian, Australian, Navajo, Greek, Albanian, etc. I'll have you know I'm half Irish Catholic myself, so if anything I would be more inclined to be biased in his favor. Now, if we could just let this non-issue alone and give VK a chance to answer the question with either a yes or a no that would be ''super''. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Giano - who are these ''"adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks"'' because I'm really not seeing them? I hope that's not a reference to Counter-rev, as he was 1) neither Sussexman nor David Lauder, both of whom are still well and truly blocked and 2) was never as abusive as VintageKits was in his prime. See my talk page where I went over that already during the week - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*I see, so WJBscribe was lying/grossly exagerating here: "''19:26, 1 July 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Counter-revolutionary (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusing multiple accounts, threatening behaviour)''" and that well known upstanding paragon of Wiki virtue Rlevse (renamed as Vanquished on VK's block log) was mreley upholding the sacred Wiki after the disgraceful night of dirty knives when North America hurriedly sent VK packing while Ireland slept - I hope you are proud of that in North America! One only has to look at the names on his block log [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AVintagekits] to see what was happenng a combination of monumantal and engineered ignorance. You Alison, released Counter-revolutionary from his cage in time for the 2010 election after asking for few if any reasurrances of futire behaviour. Yet, when VK wants similarly releasing all hell breaks loose as the drones march out to comment, clearly (as Beeblebrox admits) with mot a clue about that which they are comenting on. I find this all very odd indeed. I am delighted that VK states he is a reformed charactor and hope he has the chance to prove that - a great pity you did not require similar assurances from CR. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please cease posting comments to this thread in the recent nationalist-battleground and what-about-that-guy vein. You clearly support VK's unblock, but your efforts are counterproductive to that aim and you seem unable to recognise that (as I said before, if you have current issues with other editors, then pursue [[WP:DR|DR]] as appropriate). My expectation is that VK will address the issue of whether he would accept the previous unblock terms and why they would work this time (with the hope that successfully respecting them would later give some chance of them being lifted) or else make the best case he can why he should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread, where I don't rate his chances in the near future, but with a good enough effort, who knows. At any rate, there's no other way back, and you're not helping - quite the opposite. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 13:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::*I'm sure you all hate haveing the nationalistic overtones of this debate brought out into the open, but there are no other conclusions one can draw? Bad behaviour hapened on both sides, yet only one side continues to be punished - or have you just unblocked VK? Oh and will you all please stop quoting these stupid [[WP-things]] at me, all written by yourselves. Either behave fairly or be quite yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Any more of this nonsense and I'll page ban you from here, mostly for VK's benefit but also for your own. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*{{small|Well, he's still blocked. Your reverse-psychology strategy worked. :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
* - the question to Vintagekits .... |
|||
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree - address that, VK, or else make the best case you can why you should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread and see where we stand. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::*that conditionality wouldnt annoy me to be honest. I think people will be surprised with how I handle my self from now on so I would have no objection to a restriction like that.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::IMHO, an AN or ANI report/thread shouldn't be opened until Vk's unblocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::VK shouldn't be unblocked until the community has agreed to removal of the effective community ban. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oops, I forgot, it was a community ban. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Bringing it up again at ANI could result in disappointment for VK, but could also be the fair thing to do, as the worst the group is likely to do is say "No" again. Just make sure you-know-who doesn't put his oar in and gum up the works for VK. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I find it fairly hard to take this process serious, especially considering the CR episode. My first unblock request was largely rejeced out oof hand because I didnt explain myself and then I did in the second and it was rejected because it was "too soon". Whats a guy gotta do?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Be patienet. Remember, there's alot of editors out there, who still don't trust you & aren't quick to forgive your past behaviour. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Make a third one. You've explained yourself better, and as it seems you're willing to accept the terms, it seems reasonable to now discuss an unblock at AN. I think the "too soon" issue may have been because at that point you hadn't addressed the terms, and now you have I wouldn't expect it to happen again. (And if it does, I'm happy to start an AN thread anyway.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::As per the above, you have explained your position and alluded to your understanding of why you were restricted and you have offered and accepted the possible restrictions such as mentor and topic restriction, so moving forward and with this in mind your offer and request is worth presenting to the community, although I am sure you know there is no guarantee, if you are serious I suggest you present the new situation in an unblock template for community consideration. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Disclosure; I'm half Irish, so maybe I empathize a bit too much, but I suggest you try again right away(apppears to me you have a bit of positive momentum right now) and if anybody who might be Christian throws up the "31 blocks" objection, just remind them, especially at this time of year, that 31 is not [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:21-23&version=KJV 490]]. [[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.Grantevans2]] ([[User talk:Mr.grantevans2|talk]]) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock Request - Take III== |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. | decline=Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
|||
*You might want to fix the spelling errors and also clarify the "not...not" statement. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Chuck in a bit about your agreement to being sanctioned from the British & Irish political areas of Wikipedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Bit disappointing, VK - you just copied and pasted Take II without even reading carefully enough to find obvious spelling mistakes, never mind address the points discussed after Take II. This might easily look a bit cavalier to some, which seems silly when you're trying to convince people. Try and fix the issues mentioned before anything else happens. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::'Cavalier' - do you agree with the rationale behind the closing of 'Take II'. By the way, my spelling is always terrible. It always has been, it always will be. If you find that offensive then I can only apologies. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, that response robs me of any remaining desire to help you. I wash my hands of this. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I almost closed this one out of hand, thinking it a duplicate of the previous one. Which it is... [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::What more would you like to see in this request?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::What do you think are the reasons you got into trouble here? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Many because I was reeled in by dishonest people. What about you?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What were you blocked for? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's all set about in my block log and the above discussions.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Do YOU understand what you were blocked for? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Now now KB, have a bit of manners when you are on my talkpage. Its not like you have showered yourself in glory when you have been here before. I'll answer your question with a question. Have you read my unblock request?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I have. And I don't believe your reasons for requesting an unblock. You were on a final final chance and you blew it out of the water. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't think you realise Kittybrewster, that it is your friends who have largley caused the problem which VK has had. However, I'm sure all concerned are noticing, that VK is behaving with maturity and gravitas and not rising to your bait, so perhaps a little introspection would be beneficial for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed you are right; I don't realise that my friends (whatever that means) have largely caused VK's problem. Nor do I think VK has begun to make clear that he is responsible. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whatever makes you happy Kittybrewster can only be applauded. However, I don't think you will find than VK or indeed anyone other eager to respond to yout trolling here. Good evening. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I was about ready to read yet another attempt by Giaco to sabotage VK's comeback attempt, but VK seems to have done a good job sabotaging ''himself'' this time. I can only conclude that he really, really does ''not'' want to edit on wikipedia. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ |
|||
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I was ready to log a "support unblock", but it's clear he's not serious, so forget it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Just a courtesy notice that I have asked at [[WP:AN]] for a previously uninvolved admin to come deal with this, it has obviously dragged on far too long. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Userpage == |
|||
The userpage should be changed to ''indef block'', as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:True though that may be, is it ''really'' that big of a deal? Anyone can see from this page that the "retirement" was not voluntary. In short you are correct but it is hardly the most pressing issue here. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::It's just illogical to keep thate ''retirement'' tag, when that's not the situation. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree completely. I just don't see it as a pressing problem. There has already been a slo-mo edit war over this for over a year, and it's still there. There are things that are worth fighting for and things that are not. I suggest this falls into the "not" category. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I changed it to indefblocked yesterday, especially since consensus was formed at AN/I that he's blocked indefinitely, but I was reverted out of hand by his friend. As usual, on Wikipedia, it's not about what you do but who you know. - [[User:Burpelson AFB|Burpelson AFB]] [[User talk:Burpelson AFB|✈]] 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's not worth edit-warring over. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Nothing ever is.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
*I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact [[WP:BASC]] if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning.svg|32px|left]] |
|||
Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg]]'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]], but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|first non-free content criterion]] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: |
|||
# Go to [[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg|the media description page]] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''. |
|||
# On [[File talk:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg|the image discussion page]], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. |
|||
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license]], or by taking a picture of it yourself. |
|||
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Vintagekits&namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content policy]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg== |
|||
== Is VK to return? == |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
There seems to be a grudging and weary consensus (above) on this page that Vintagekits should be allowed to edit once again, while severely restricted. Is there an admin prepared to put some cogs into motion on this subject - so the community can debate the precise restrictions to be imposed on his editing - should he return, and then lift the block/ban? [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
There is a proper appeals procedure. By all means he should submit an appeal but a few voices here hardly represents a mighty groundswell. --[[User:Maxburgoyne|MJB]] ([[User talk:Maxburgoyne|talk]]) 09:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
:I would '''oppose''' his return. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and the sheer size of this community necessitates that its participants follow a set of rules of behaviour. Vintagekits has shown nothing but contempt for these rules. |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Toi tim.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Toi tim.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:When his sockpuppets were discovered 2½ months ago, he admitted to using them but offered no apology. ''Bang to rights, they are me and I am not going to deny them.'' Strangely, he was praised for this! |
|||
:*''If only others had your dignity'' |
|||
:*''At least you leave with a bit of class, and good grace'' |
|||
:*''It's refreshing, to see an editor being honest about his/her dishonesty'' |
|||
:However, despite this "show of class", only '''two days later''' he created another sockpuppet – {{user|Stick Negative}} – and started editing again. His list of socks (confirmed by [[User:Alison|Alison]]) is now at 14. |
|||
:If he had left Wikipedia alone for a few months and come back with a request for a fresh start, I'm sure that some admins might consider it. But his actions since February 19 speak volumes to me about his lack of contrition and unwillingness to abide by community standards, so I am one admin who will not unblock him for any reason. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Give up the sock puppets Vk & take a few months off. It's likely your only way to return from 'exile'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I've got no active socks. I havent edited article that wasnt involving boxing since I got the indefinate block so what Andrwsc says should be put in that context. I dont see why I should be limited from editing sporting articles when I have no history of conflict on those articles. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''Support'''. Agree totally. There appears to be an unpleasant tone of vindictiveness amongst those getting het-up about using socks to edit boxing articles. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If someone is on an indefinite block, then they know they're not supposed to be editing, period. Using socks to evade the block does indeed show contempt for the community. Even now its "I don't see why I should be limited...", not "Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have done that." '''Oppose''' an unblock. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Support'''.I think it is only fair and humane, to let VK edit '''subject to the clear conditions above'''. Forbidding access to edit his boxing pages is just vindictive, and serves nobody well, including the encyclopedia. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 08:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''Strongly oppose'''. He doesn't have it in him to limit himself to boxing. For example his recent unnecssary comment above saying MaxBurgoyne is unpleasant. This from banned editor. He is just too much trouble. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 09:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I know you are old but if you can read Max said '''I''' was ''unpleasant'' '''not''' the other way around. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thought you would have still been in bed following the celebrations Kitty? [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Credit where it is due. Vintagekits is not a [[WP:DIVA|diva]]. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Very true Kitty, glad you are coming around to my view that VK has many good points. One small thing though, VK isn't banned, or can point to a discussion with consensus for a ban? Any admin can unblock at any time. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Misassumptions galore. I never said he has many good points. The community has determined he is too much trouble. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Are you saying those who control sockpuppets should be banned? Do you have a link to the ban discussion? [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That is not for me to determine. Numerous incidents culminated in his name being put on the list of banned users. He can always appeal. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 11:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Kitty could you provide a link to a discussion which resulted in a consensus for VK to be banned? I cant seem to find one. [[User:BigDunc|BigDunc]] ([[User talk:BigDunc|talk]]) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think you will find Dunc that Kitty harassed several admins to add VK to the list of banned users, even though he wasn't even banned to begin with, there was no discussion, which is why VK can now be unblocked. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
<---(unindent) Given the recent discussion at [[WP:ANI]] about [[User:Jack Merridew]], also a known sockpuppeteer who produced some good content, and his recent unblock, it seems that consistency would indicate that VK should be unblocked as well. I am one of the people approached to put VK on the list of banned users, which I refused to do because there was not a community ban discussion anywhere; it wasn't just admins who were approached, and I know at least two other people refused to add him to the list. The proposed restrictions seem reasonable to me, should VK agree. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:O'hanlon.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:O'hanlon.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* Moved to Commons and now used on [[Fergal O'Hanlon]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg== |
|||
:I've raised the matter [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits, part 94|here]] so that others may comment. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Copyright-problem.svg|64px|left|alt=|link=]] |
|||
::::Thanks for leaving such an unbiased comment to direct people to this discussion.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you for uploading '''[[:File:Poster50r.jpg]]'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free|image copyright tag]]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. |
|||
::Both he and David Lauder should be allowed back under severe restrictions. it would be wrong to unblock Vintage and not Lauder. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::David Lauder is community banned, Vintagekits is not. The two are nothing to do with each other, David Lauder can appeal to ArbCom to be unbanned, Vintagekits can be unblocked by any administrator. [[User:BigDunc|BigDunc]] ([[User talk:BigDunc|talk]]) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' unblock, but under editing restrictions. I don't think he should be under restrictions forever, but only for a short period of time. Maybe he could have a [[WP:MENTOR|mentor]] also? [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::He already had a mentor - it didn't work. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Who was the mentor? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I was given [[User:SirFozzie]] as a mentor - but nothing really came of it in terms of formal mentorship because he got sick and wasnt around much and also because he was in the US and me in Europe so we were never around at the same time.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**I think restrictions should include a 10 year ban on voting at arbcom or similar elections. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
***10 years I think is a little too much. 2/3 years maybe at the most? [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. We as the community are too lenient on users such as him. Plus I don't trust that he would be able to follow them. User:Andrwsc says it pretty well. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Irhm sign.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Irhm sign.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Comment''', well to be fair logic doesnt really bare that comment out. 1. when I was indefinately blocked I hadnt been editing in areas of conflict. Check my edit history if you dont believe me? 2. the block was for a history breach of rules, not for what I was doing at the time. 3. the socks I have used since the indefinate block havent caused any disruption and have only edited sporting article which is an area that I have never had any trouble.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg == |
|||
*'''Support.''' Keeping him blocked now is punitive not preventative, and therefore a breach of the blocking policy. He's agreed to only edit sporting articles and not cause disruption, and nobody could say any of his socks since his indef block were disruptive only constructive. Most of the people are attempting to punish him for past crimes, so it's a punitive block. [[User:BigDunc|BigDunc]] ([[User talk:BigDunc|talk]]) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 8#File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --[[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Every time you use a sock to get around a block, you're essentially saying 'Fuck you and your rules'. So far your 'Fuck you and your rules' count is at almost 20. [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] ([[User talk:HalfShadow|talk]]) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Weak support''' but only for sport and other innocuous ie non-political articles, and is restricted to 1 revert per week (non vandalism). He should also be banned from voting or standing in arbcom elections for 5 years. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment''', I would have no problem with restrictions like that tbh.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''', Like I said above if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. As the Olympics are coming round the corner there is going to be a lot of boxing stuff that needs doing so I would like to be able to do that. |
|||
== File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
:I don't have a problem with a restrictive topic ban at all but I would like it to be an exclusive one rather than an inclusive one. e.g. I would still like to be able to edit [[The Bhoys from Seville|football articles]] or articles about [[James Morrison (fiddler)|music]] or [[Mac Diarmada railway station|railway stations]] or [[Creggan, Derry|geography]] or [[Sligo Jail|places of interest]] so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics. |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Grave of emmet.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Grave of emmet.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
:I think that most people will agree that prior to me being blocked I wasn't causing any disruption and that the only issue I had in the months before my block was the spat with Rockpocket - who since then has said that he (incorrectly) thought I was harassing his family and that is probably the reason he was gunning for me at that time. I would just like to go back to the way I was editing in the weeks prior to my block. Like I say - just check the edit history.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Point of clarification. I did indeed say it was most likely that Vk was likely involved with the ongoing campaign to harass me on and off wiki, given the evidence. I did so, mainly out of frustration, in response to the praise of Vk after his blocking. It struck me as particularly hurtful that this campaign was going on unbeknown to many other good editors offering the praise. I retrospect it was incorrect of me to bring that up publicly without definitive proof and I later apologized for doing so and removed them. The identity of those involved in the harassment have never been resolved, and is unlikely to be now. Vk continues to deny involvement, as does everyone else. |
|||
:: I ''did not'', however, say that I was "gunning" for Vk at the time. Quite the opposite - I didn't even mention the harassment until after Vk was indef blocked (by someone else, for something else). If Vk is to be unblocked from his indef for sockpuppetry, so be it. I remain neutral on that. But I wish to clarify that his current situation was not resultant of me "gunning" for him, as implied above. I had zero involvement in his indef block (indeed, if you look at the contributions, you will see I was absent from editing Wikipedia during the incident) and his prior block was for personal attacks. I'm sure the blocking admins will confirm that. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::The reason I raised your name was that after the Troubles Arbcom there was a noticable change in my editing. I think everyone would agree with that - the only issue I had since the Arbcom was that spat with you. I thought you were stalking me and I believe and still do that you were targetting me because you were being harassed off wiki. It was not until you came out and said that you thought it was me that was harassing you that I realised that my suspicions were true. |
|||
:::For the record - once again - it was not me that was harassing Rocket, nor did I know it was happening, nor do I know who it is/was. I do not know how I can prove it was not me except to say it was not me - its not my style and I dont think anyone agreed with you that it was or would be me.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It is true that I refused to stop editing Troubles related articles as a way of avoiding conflict, because doing so meant I was changing ''my'' editing, when it was ''your'' inability to edit the same articles as me that was the problem. It is also true that the campaign against me likely influenced that decision: I was not willing to let harassers get what they wanted (which was me to leave The Troubles sphere, or perhaps Wikipedia completely). Therefore what you see as "targeting" you was simply a subsequence of our overlapping watch lists. However, that is rather inconsequential now as I don't think I have any boxers on my watch list. Therefore, should you be permitted back under those restrictions, it should be clear that I am not "targeting" you and, if that is the only thing that would precipitate incivil or aggressive behaviour, then you should have no problems. |
|||
:::: Regarding the harassment, I doubt you could prove you were not involved, just as I cannot prove you were. The point is someone in an around the Troubles sphere was doing it (I have provided the on-wiki evidence to other admins to delete and/or oversight). Unsurprisingly, no-one has come forward to own up to it. Since you are the only person in that sphere that has harassed me on and off-wiki in the past (under you own name, admittedly) and since you are the only person who has publicly admitted an ongoing issue with me, is it really a surprise that I drew that conclusion? I think anyone would do the same. It remains entirely possible you are not involved whatsoever, and if that is the case then we are both victims because you have clearly been set up by someone. In that case I of course apologise. But [[WP:AGF]] gets very difficult now, Vk, because you have to admit you have been less than honest in the past (for example, you have stated numerous times that you have not used sockpuppets and then we later found out that you were indeed using sockpuppets at that time). So, the question is, when you have clearly lied in the past to enable you to paint the best picture of your editing, could you not also be lying now? [[The Boy Who Cried Wolf|Can you at least see why people are skeptical of trusting you on this occasion?]] |
|||
:::: Nevertheless, whether your should be unblocked or not on this occasion should not be influenced by this situation. It had nothing to do with the block under discussion and your block history is extensive enough for past record to be taken into account without having to consider things you may or may not be involved in. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Some advice here! Vk, it is clear that Rock had grounds for suspicion just as it is understandable that you, being innocent, would react as you did. It seems to me Rock has agreed not to block your return to (strictly) boxing articles. So just draw a line under the past misunderstandings rather than tease them out with the risk that involves of further misunderstanding. Say "Thanks Rock" - and move on :) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Until the unfounded accusation is officially withdrawn then there wont be a "Thanks Rock" but I am happy to draw a line under it and move on.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Correct, Sarah. I would rather a line be drawn under this and Vk's fate be decided by the community based on that facts that are known, not those that are not. I just wanted to state my side of the story for the record after Vk has stated his. As I said above. Good luck to you, Vk. I bid you no ill will whatever the decision is. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 05:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I'm puzzled at the perception that Vintagekits' boxing-related edits are incident-free. For example, his block of 4 November followed a chain of events that started with an editing dispute over the flag icon next to Belfast on the [[World Amateur Boxing Championships]] article. Also, as the [[User:Gueracuco]] sockpuppet, he left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ajl772&oldid=199886702 this] charming bit of incivility on [[User talk:Ajl772]] only a few weeks ago, following some improper cut-and-paste page moves on the [[National Amateur Super Heavyweight Champions]] article. Why should anybody think that he is capable of editing without disruption on '''any''' article topic? The current indefinite block must be upheld, not as a punitive measure, but as a preventative measure against any further disruption. Vintagekits has clearly failed to demonstrate that he has learned ''anything'' about how to function within this cooperative project after any of his myriad of prior blocks. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::*Vintagekits has agreed that if allowed to return to abide by the stringeant condtions outlined here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVintagekits&diff=207561454&oldid=207554742]. Two senior Admins, Lar and Alison, have both indicated support for this plan. VK truly wants to edit and prove himself responsible, to deny him oppportunity is to the detriment of the project. If he should fail to keep to those coonditions then the machinery is easily applied for a permanent ban. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, Giano - ''where exactly'' has Vk agreed that if allowed to return it would be under those conditions? All I can see is him saying he wants to be allowed to edit on more than just boxing articles. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 10:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry too, I thought there was a diff somewhere, but I can't find it either - perhaps it was in an email. Whatever, he is not getting out of jail without agreeing very publicly to those terms - while I might agree to one or two very minor changes to those rules I have outlined above - they would have to be minor for me to continue supporting his editing. He has had previous chances, this final chance has to be under very strict conditions and he has to keep to then, no ifs and no buts and no changing half way through. I am not being soft on Vk, perhaps with those conditions I am being tougher than those who want him banned. I just want to see him given a final chance to prove he means what he says - he can take it or he can leave it, but he can't say that he was not given the opportunity to edit, whe he edits best. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 11:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Under the proposed restrictions; would Vk be allowed around an article like [[Barry McGuigan]] (an Irish boxer)? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nothing has been cast in stone. The conditions I have proposed are open to debate and flexible, if some people don't want VK to edit Barry McGuigan - then he does not get to edit it. I don't think though he should be banned from any boxer, whose page he has started of been the principle editor of. However, at the end of the day if VK returns, he has to understand he is here under sufference, he does not get to call the shots. This is a very tea-total and dry Last Chance Saloon. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
'''Support:''' You only have to look at the work Vin has done on the boxing. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] ([[User talk:Domer48|talk]]) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' with the understanding that Vk, will be restricted to the Boxing articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg== |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Bresli an phob.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Discussing terms for a return == |
|||
== File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
As there seems to be a concensus to find a solution to this problem that permits VK to edit in a restricted and limited fashion - Terms for a possible return are being discussed here [[User:Giano/Terms for VK's return]], all are welcome to debate this on the talk page. If VK wishes to comment himself, his comments can be transposed there. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:All 350.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:All 350.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
=== Editing only boxing pages, concerned with boxers who have no connection to the Irish Troubles whatsoever. === |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:JimBreen.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:JimBreen.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Clarification motion == |
|||
What boxers have been directly involved in "the Troubles"?? |
|||
A case ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions|discretionary sanctions section]] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
None that I know of. |
|||
==Happy New Year== |
|||
I should be allowed edit all articles that arnt relating to "the Troubles".--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:blue">Giano</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks your comment has been pasted to the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano%2FTerms_for_VK%27s_return&diff=210341659&oldid=210326472]. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023
Extended content
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Since you continue to be disruptive..Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
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).
Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement. Decline reason: You clearly don't want to understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock 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
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 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).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. Vintagekits (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Decline reason: No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Wikipedia standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. Dekimasuよ! 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 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.
BanAs you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per this ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you know what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up "apology" in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not banned yetThe debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? Giano 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:
Posted here by Giano 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --LiamE (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Official statement requestedJehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --Domer48'fenian' 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Lift the blockGiven the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a tactic in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted before any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the real agenda of the block and ban lobby. Sarah777 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
MentorshipWould you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Completely unconnected questionIs Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. Giano 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Block and associated discussionI have closed the discussion at the incident noticeboard regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the arbitration committee review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to requests for arbitration for you. Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Take a peek at here, another option. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Pacman, WBO welterweight championPacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The Third RoadHi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both shithouse because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. Come over to Wikisource for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) Wikisource needs someone with your passion. s:Wikisource:Sports doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create s:Wikisource:Boxing We have a few poor quality works in s:Category:Boxing. As an example, I have set up s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu and s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu, where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. Thomas Smallwood. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the OCR errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. After a few months, you can then appeal your Wikipedia ban either to Arbcom or to the community. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctionsAs a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) VK is blocked indefinitely, not retiredWhy is the tagging of his user page with {indefblocked} even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of clue about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and not screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance". GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about making silly points in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from
Not appropriate.This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. Chillum 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. Chillum 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) RfD nomination of 'The Great White Hope'.I have nominated 'The Great White Hope'. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Request for feedbackAlright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.209.68 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPsHello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 874 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The article Mark McAllister has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Articles for deletion nomination of The Lying Down GameOrphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpgPLEASE NOTE:
Clothing store listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clothing store. Since you had some involvement with the Clothing store redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpgA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kieran Nugent.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Unblock request
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).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. Decline reason: 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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, you should see WP:NOTTHEM and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (User talk:Vintagekits/terms). See also comments at the ANI discussion about this request. Rd232 talk 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 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. See discussion at WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock. Sandstein 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. Giacomo 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("The actually block was malicious in the first place", "there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate why your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. Rockpocket 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
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).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per WP:OFFER or to email BASC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 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.
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock Request - Take III
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).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. Courcelles 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 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.
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UserpageThe userpage should be changed to indef block, as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
- I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact WP:BASC if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toi tim.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:O'hanlon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons and now used on Fergal O'Hanlon - Alison ❤ 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Poster50r.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irhm sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grave of emmet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bresli an phob.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All 350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimBreen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! Giano (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)