User talk:Blockinblox/archive

deletion

Please don't mark pages which have GFDL history for deletion. Instead, contact an admin to help you fix the problem. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User page reverted, on voting

Hello there, thanks for pointing out that I accidentally edited another user's page. I have reverted the change, and put the comment on the users' talk page.

As to voting: Yes, I have seen you areond, and being among the more active crowd. However, I personally believe that a good start for a candidature is some user page that ias useful, in some way or another.

I will therefore not vote for (or against) your nomination at the moment

Eptalon 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

email

One of the requirements for Adminship is to configure an email address, so that if you block someone they have a way to contact you. If you've already set an address in Special:Preferences, then go to Special:Confirmemail and follow those steps. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, done... My email is now active... Blockinblox 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Blockinblox still doesn't work... perhaps you've not checked "Enable e-mail from other users" in Special:Preferences? -- Netoholic @ 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, try it now.. Blockinblox 12:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

You blocked 80.68.8.86 without warnings, and this user only made one edit. Please add {{subst:test}} and {{subst:stopvandal}} on his/her talk page before blocking. -- aflm ^Talk 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your assistance needed urgently

Sir, I wish to take issue with you on the fact that you have deleted my user page without first talking to me. My page was vandalised by the Slobodan Milosevic vandal whom I reported yesterday. I was reverting vandalism by that user and got vandalised myself. Instead of deleting the whole page, why could you simply not revert it back to what it should be through the history? Now I have to go back to kick off and start the whole page again. Can you please be a little more careful before deleting because of vandalism? The page wasn't vandalism, it was vandalised by a vandal whose "work" I had reverted. Tmalmjursson 14:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

vandal

User:New user's first edit was this diatribe. Please don't waste time with {{test}}-style warnings when a new account was created so obviously just for vandalism. Just block them indefinitely. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My user page

...has been vandalised by User:68.147.251.201. Please block him or her per my requests; he or she has been warned before.

If I was an admin, I'd block that person for years on end. But for now, he or she needs really good talk up at Care-a-lot... --Slgrandson 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A major matter to deal with here...

I would apppreciate it if you could block whoever is responsible for creating those sockpuppet accounts to disrupt the project and my work:

• Maybe you all should try to protect the page and do an IP check
• So it took fifteen minutes, not 4 hours
• Another one to offend me while trying to stop him or her: Name withheld.

Now that same person's going to create more accounts, and it'll get much worse by dawn local time!

When I go to Wikipedia:Administrators, I will place my request so that my work can continue smoothly. In the meantime, please block the IP(s) of this user and warn them off. --Slgrandson 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

#vandalism-simple-wp

Forgive the spamming of admin talk pages, but I wanted to inform all the active admins that there is now a Counter Vandalism Unit IRC channel devoted to Simple English Wikipedia. If anyone is interest: #vandalism-simple-wp. -- Psy guy 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

Why did you revert my edits and list it as minor? It would only be minor if it was vandalism, and it wasn't. Although I'm not a Marxist, to say his ideas do not work are POV, especially when many Marxists don't think his ideas were ever put into practice fully. I actually think his ideas don't work, but it is still POV to say that in an article. Anarchists (at least the vast, vast majority) oppose capitalism, and the ones that don't are often not viewed as part of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable Force 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)\

I didn't mean to imply vandalism by marking 'minor', I thought this could be done for any revert... I know that most anarchists do oppose capitalism, and wasn't trying to revert that edit, as much as the deletion of "because Marx's ideas did not work"... But I see how that could be construed as pov, so maybe it would be more factual in light of what you pointed out above, to write instead "because Marx's ideas were never _made to_ work"...? Blockinblox 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the minor is only for reverting clear cases of vandalism or fixing small grammatical or spelling errors. In fact, engaging in too many reverts is called an edit war, and that is definetely not minor. I like the idea of "because Marx's ideas were never made to work", that sounds fine. The Ungovernable Force 21:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest vandal

Our latest vandal (attacking users, creating tons of sockpuppets) must not be blocked for over 1 hour. I think we are systematically cutting off all the Verizon customers in the US. I'm contacting Verizon. Archer7 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

When he disconnects from that IP and the old one is assigned to someone else, the old IP is still blocked, not his machine. We can't go on blocking all the thousands of individual IPs anyway, I'm emailing Verizon. Archer7 17:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'm not sure if edit summaries are as big of a deal as they are on the main Wikipedia, but I do strongly suggest that you use edit summaries on articles more often (not simply just for vandalism reverts), as it makes it easier for other editors to see what you have done.--TBCΦtalk? 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

images

Sorry mate, I'll put them in the commons instead. Charlie123 09:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Just to say a hello. --Bhadani 17:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine

Yes, ok. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the vandal. Can you delete my userpage?--Kungfuadam 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Blockinblox Agrees He Sucks

You have been impersonated by this vandal, just to let you know. He has been blocked by Freshstart. Thanks.-- Tdxiang 04:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Comment

Yes, I did figure that out yesterday and so I put a template up that day. What's the standard length for the reason in the template?--Qmwne235 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ThANKS

thanks--Vector (write me please)^(Esperanza) 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

please block all the reincarnations (a friend of Vector) 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks a lot...--Vector (write me please)^(Esperanza) 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unisuitable content

Why are my edits being deleted as unsuitable? Wikipedia has articles on the Donkey Punch and the Dirty Sanchez, and it also has real anatomical photographs. I think that information should be free and available in simple english, and that these articles represent a serious deficiency in the quality of information available on the simple english wikipedia.

Is Simple English Wikipedia censored? For whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutodaang (talk • contribs) of 22.06.06

Mao

Please beleive me, I didn't mean that to be the final version, or to white wash his crimes. I just wanted to bring it to a more neutral level, and I think that we can agree neither version is neutral. I understand that he was responsible for millions of deaths. Some of what was said seemed to be a very POV exaggeration, and I realize I probably went too far in the other direction. So can we compromise, instead of reverting everything the other person tries to add? Thanks. Picaroon9288 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what do you think now? Picaroon9288 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

French revolution

If you want to be so ridiculous at the universe, you should accept the following version of French Revolution, shouldn't you? --216.125.49.252 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you reverted edits to Universe but have no problem with the current version of the French Revolution. If we are honest, we really should support this version shouldn't we? After all, none of us were there to witness whether the French Revolution happened or not, were we? Your advocacy is, frankly, unbecoming, not based in fact, and extremely ignorant. Perhaps you should consider getting an education. --216.125.49.252 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, there were plenty of eyewitnesses to the French Revolution who left testimony. How many were there for the Big Bang? Blockinblox 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

OK, I've just looked at the Big Bang mess, and I've decided it's way out of control just over two letters (which IMO make no difference at all to the NPOV or factual accuracy, see page talk). If 216 or Billz revert any more, or any insulting comments or anything, it's an instant 24 hour block to the offender. Thanks for walking away from this one. Archer7 - talk 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about sparking off an edit war. This was not my intention and I will not continue any further. At the time, I thought I was saving Blockinblox a job, but I realised I was not. I apologise for my errors. Billz (Talk) 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to pornography

Thank you for your excellent edit to the pornography article. I was just reverting that section to earlier text and hadn't thought to fix it.Anonymoustom 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?!?

Which edits is you saying is vandalism of this there pedia thinger?

--24.83.203.198 16:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You makin' no sense

I thought this was for those o' us who don't talk all pretty, because we're real american men with real jobs instead o' dumb ol' university edukation. Where can I go for encyclomopedia?

deleting templates

You deleted Template:En, but it was still in use on a few dozen pages. Try to make sure all uses are removed by checking the Whatlinkshere for the template. I've cleared up this one. -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandal

A recent vandalism attack occured by one person on three IPs. I got all but one of the instances of vandalism (you got the last one). They are: Special:Contributions/202.45.119.37, Special:Contributions/202.45.119.39, Special:Contributions/202.45.119.41. Thanks. --Zsinj 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

[1]. I come over here to try to help, and only get attacked by the people who hold grudges against me from enwiki. I mean, honest question, is everyone here really that uncivil? Jeez. Stopping by to say I appreciate your help regarding Alastor. Chacor 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now look, I find your continuous chatting away about technical stuff really annoying. Your way of saying things give the impression that you know absolutely everything and I don't know anything. Geez, I hate people who are like that. You are also like that on English wiki. RaNdOm26 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Random, I suggest you please remember to assume good faith.--TBCΦtalk? 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there no rule against personal attacks here? Chacor 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very happy about this. I don't know what you want me to do. What to say now? I'm not settled. RaNdOm26 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll work on completely different articles from now on. RaNdOm26 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Chacor, if yu wish to come and help over here, how come yu have to give bad first impressions to other users that didn't do anything at first and call other user's edits "unnecessary", cause this wiki is not to make conflicts (espeically what happedned before between you and me in en wiki) cuz I don't want that in here. You made me abandon the genral English Wikipedia, but do yu now wish me to leave this wiki also, cuz I'll have no choice but go say bye-bye and go to myspace.com instead. So please, chill out and stop making early complaints. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 06:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will note that it is you and Random who have taken the initiative to launch baseless attacks against me. User_talk:Chacor#unsimple - I am sorry, but I am not going to tolerate being attacked. Your claims that I've done nothing here is also ridiculous, given that as an anon I decided to start simple's 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Chacor 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what are you telling me to do now? Continuing to attack you even more, or getting more annoyed reading your comments about me? RaNdOm26 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoken

Hi. Thanks for the advice. The majority of the edits I made, though, were of a (I believe) completely uncontroversial nature. Mostly grammar and wording fixes. I made a little factual correction to Chocolate and added a sentence to atheism that probably I should have waited for. If it's not just grammar and minor wording that I fix, I'll be sure to wait in the future. Cheers! Storkk 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi again. Under what policy criteria did you delete Image:Spoken Atheism.ogg? I am not too familiar with policy on simple, having only just started here, on normal EN, it would have been marked for a deletion discussion. You could have simply de-linked it from the page, and waited for a while. You also reverted the textual addition to atheism. May I ask on what grounds? That it wasn't referenced? By that criteria, most of simple would have to removed. Since I don't want to revert you, I'll cite it now for you, if you like so that you can add it back:

• Michael Martin, Atheism: a Philosophical Justification pp 7-14. 1990 Temple University Press. ISBN 0877229430.
• J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The debate between Theists & Atheists 1993 Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758236

(I can't immediately find the page references for the second reference, but I will be able to overnight)

Please respond with your reasoning. Many thanks! Storkk 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One more reference:

• Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian pp11-14, 22, 63-72. 1957 Touchstone Books. ISBN 0671203231 Storkk 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it would not meet any en:WP:CSD, en image deletion policies would forbid Speedying it. I also did not "rewrite" the article. I added 1 sentence, which I have now sourced. --Storkk 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I'll keep that in mind for the future. That, however, has no bearing on the sentence that was removed from the textual reversion that you performed. Now that it is sourced, please add it back or let me know that you won't revert again when I put it back. Many thanks! --Storkk 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Hi, I just wondered why you thought this article was inappropriate. AnemoneProjectors 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the point, but shouldn't it have at least gone to discussion rather than immediate deletion? AnemoneProjectors 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems quite irrational to me. Are there no procedures for deletions here at Simple? __meco 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's the deletion policy. AnemoneProjectors 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)