User talk:86.40.102.64: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 10 October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (86.40.102.64) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! :- ) Don 17:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assigning class and assessments

I realize that most of your edits have been constructive and very much appreciated. Adding project templates is not a problem either. However, assigning the class and importance to a page then becomes the responsibility of a member of the Project. -- :- ) Don 17:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how many edits must I make or literature degrees must I have before I can do this?

You simply need to be a member of the associated project and follow their assessment guidelines. Every project is different, and I find it difficult to believe that you have reviewed all the assessment guidelines of each of the projects for which you have placed templates. You are welcome to place templates but leave the class and assessment blank. The computer puts these into a list automatically for each project page. I or someone else will simply have to clear all of these later. And the project people may be more upset about it than I am. -- :- ) Don 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following their guidelines. What makes you think I'm not? That I'm not using an account? And what do you mean by "all the assessment guidelines of each of the projects"? If it helps I do know a thing or two about this topic from a worldwide point of view. And I would seriously question the capabilities of any literature project that considers Irish, French and Russian literature to be below Italian and Guyanese literature, or Cervantes to be below Joyce.

October 2012

Hello, I'm Dcshank. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! This is simply a required warning that needs to be given. You may continue as you have, then I will ask for an Administrator for his opinion, then he may decide to block you from editing. :- ) Don 18:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What on earth are you on about? Would you ever go away. I'm not a child and have done nothing unconstructive whatsoever.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

Request reason:

Could you explain what exactly I have done that is "disruptive"? I actually find this to be "disruptive". 86.40.102.64 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You persisted in adding quality evaluations to articles when you had been asked to refrain, and did not engage in discussion (name-calling is not discussion). Besides, running to ANI and claiming "harassment" (when it is obvious that there was none) is disruptive in its own right. But that's just my take. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, everyone has disagreed with you. That's usually an indication that you might not necessarily be in the right. Your block is short, so take some time out to have a cup of tea, walk the dog, anything really, and come back when you've calmed down a bit. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not "in the right", could you tell me how exactly I am in the wrong? So far I've been accused of everything short of murder or genocide, have denied the charges against me and no one has given me a valid reason why, for example, Divine Comedy and Don Quixote are not alike in terms of literary importance, no one has reasoned why Joyce and Cervantes are not of similar influence, no one has told me why Russian or French literature must be ranked beneath Guyanese literature, as was the case before I tried to rectify this, etc. Which was all I did. I ranked like with like. It is basic literary knowledge. It doesn't even require an academic degree. It is not a complicated skill. I shouldn't need guidance. I shouldn't need disruption. I can read the instructions. I'm not a child. Yet I was blocked, called a vandal, labelled a sockpuppet, and so many other ridiculous things. And how do you know I'm not calm? How can you expect me to prove I'm calm or not calm through a computer screen? I'm pretty calm actually, considering my recent experiences with this website.

I was not asked to refrain from anything other than "unconstructive" edits. I refrained from unconstructive edits because I had not been making any unreasonable or ill-thought out edits in the first place. The user was again and again leaving messages on this talk page telling me they thought I lacked the ability to do what I was doing, then they accused me of vandalism, and suggested I was "intent" on wrecking wikipedia in about 12 hours. [1] I would call that disruptive. I'm sorry if I went to the wrong ANI page, or said the wrong words when explaining there, but when you're threatened with blocks over trivial matters what are you meant to do? Where do you put your frustration? I've not even been adding "quality evaluations" to articles. I swapped certain top and high priorities around accordingly in the same project, in cases where they weren't matching. It was unbalanced, I was putting like with like. How is that disruptive? Besides all this, it has been asserted again and again that I know nothing about "quality evaluations" and that I know nothing at all about what I'm doing. How can you tell this? How do you know I haven't been doing "quality evaluations" for weeks, months, years? And, if I hadn't, how exactly to I qualify to become a "quality evaluator"? This is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. The "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" might as well be taken down from the home page. It seems only that "anyone can edit" until someone decides to get in the way.

This is getting ridiculous bordering on the ludicrous bordering on insanity. As if this situation wasn't already absurd enough I'm a "sock" for not signing my edits? And where did the idea come from that I was a "newbie"? When did I say that? Just because this IP doesn't hold all my edits doesn't make me a "newbie" or a "sock" or a "vandal". This is outrageous and completely undignified. Is there no good faith left in the world? Quite apart from WP:DONTBITE, me being a "newbie" is hardly cause for this treatment.

Well, let's look at it the other way. How do we know you do have experience in "quality evaluations"? I don't have much to go on, but I know failure to sign edits is typical of newbie behaviour, and years of experience has told me that shouting "I'm not a sockpuppet" has about a 50% chance of actually being one. Now, granted, these are not perfect indicators but enough to make a reasonable guess at behaviour. Still, let's put this behind us - find a good article (or even a good article) to edit and all will be well. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known the absence of a signature would be used against me like this I'd have signed the blooming thing. What would you like? A certificate of completion confirming I've passed my "quality evaluations" examinations?

Very well then. A user has out of nothing, out of nowhere, come along and accused me of being a "sockpuppet" - on top of the previous accusations of being a "vandal" and a generally no-good, useless, incompetent excuse of an editor. I cannot respond because I've been blocked. What then do I do? If I protest I must therefore be one, you say? So what do I do? How do I get myself out of that situation? Am I supposed to ignore it?

And what do you mean find a good article to edit? Like William Trevor or some other article I was quite happily editing until all this fuss? Why would I bother doing anything, why should I volunteer my time, why should I labour over something after the way I've been treated? Quite apart from the fact that I'm still blocked and couldn't do that anyway even if I wanted.

Request for intervention

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).

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

Request reason:

My reason is that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not and have never caused damage or disruption, and will continue to make useful contributions as I had been doing all along.

Decline reason:

But as the previous declined unblock says, you must convince us of this; simply parroting it is not convincing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Convince you? How??? It seems I have have been blocked for doing the following, and similar. Ranking Joyce and Cervantes alongside each other in terms of literary importance, rectifying the error that suggested Russian and French literature was inferior to Guyanese literature, etc. If this is wrong in Wikipedia world I can only apologise for my complete and utter stupidity. I'd probably better never, ever edit Wikipedia again - just in case I accidentally suggest Gabriel García Márquez is among the world's most influential living writers, that Alice Munro is the Canadian Chekhov or other patent, yet commonly believed, lies about literature.

Actually, scratch that, sarcasm probably doesn't exist in Wikipedia world either. Everything is very serious indeed.

Have I passed my exam?

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).

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

Request reason:

Having been blocked due to the belief that I was not qualified to deal with literature articles, I hope I have displayed my competence in that field. That would render the block obsolete.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, the block has expired. Favonian (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Procedural decline?

{{|unblock|reason=And this is [[:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]]? When did the robots take over?}}

You are no longer blocked, therefore we cannot unblock you. Favonian (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well nobody bothered to tell me they were unblocking or why they did so.

Nobody did. It was a three-hour block. Favonian (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says "disruptive editing" there. I did not engage in "disruptive editing". Please take away that black mark against my name.

That's what you were blocked for. Now, those edits. I just undid part of one, here. Don Quixote is very important, but while it is of top importance in the Novels group, I dispute that it's of top importance for Spain. You've been throwing some things around here, but I don't see where you rank "importance" in terms of the groups you're ranking them in. Top in one group doesn't translate to top in another. By the same token, Alice Munro doesn't, in my opinion, rank as high in the Literature group, but that's easily up for debate and I'm not going to revert that. But you have to understand that if someone disagrees with you you will have to take that seriously. You can't throw your weight around because, as far as I can tell, you have no weight here--one of the disadvantages of being an IP editor, of course. If you fall into a pattern of editing that editors disapprove of, you should probably stop. Or be blocked again. For disruptive editing, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ::Nobody did.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A86.40.102.64 It was a three-hour block.] [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 :::It says "disruptive editing" there. I did not engage in "disruptive editing". Please take away that black mark against my name.
+*That's what you were blocked for. Now, those edits. I just undid part of one, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Quixote&diff=517085618&oldid=517048644 here]. ''Don Quixote'' is very important, but while it is of top importance in the Novels group, I dispute that it's of top importance for Spain. You've been throwing some things around here, but I don't see where you rank "importance" in terms of the groups you're ranking them in. Top in one group doesn't translate to top in another. By the same token, Alice Munro doesn't, in my opinion, rank as high in the Literature group, but that's easily up for debate and I'm not going to revert that. But you have to understand that if someone disagrees with you you will have to take that seriously. You can't throw your weight around because, as far as I can tell, you have no weight here--one of the disadvantages of being an IP editor, of course. If you fall into a pattern of editing that editors disapprove of, you should probably stop. Or be blocked again. For disruptive editing, I reckon. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)