Alembic
January 2009
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Patrick Swayze has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Chasingsol(talk) 10:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Patrick Swayze. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chasingsol(talk) 10:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Patrick Swayze. Chasingsol(talk) 10:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Alembic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
how can my account be indefinitely blocked because it is "used only for vandalism", look at my contributions you dipshit
Decline reason:
If you had simply asked for an unblock without the attitude in the message below and the email you sent I may have unblocked you today. I will change your block from the indefinite time to 5 months due to the fact that you have explained yourself and your actions. — ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 11:16, 10 January 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.
- I assume it has something to do with your edit warring (both logged in and logged out) to insert unsourced claims that Patrick Swayze has died. Is there some reason you seem unwilling to discuss this change, or provide a source for it? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well i just forgot to log in so that's why i did it logged and un-logged. I wasn't trying to hide my tracks, if i wanted to do that id just use a proxy. Back to the vandalism... yeah i vandalized his page, so what? I don't deny it, the source link provided was a joke. Petty vandalism. Asshore has me made out to be a vandal maniac. Regardless my other contributions since 2006 are not all vandalism as AssShore says and the only blocks received in those 3 years have been from you guys. I think a block of a definite time would be in order but blocked indefinitely? Overboard.Alembic (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see that you have a history of prior contribution, and I do appreciate that. As I'm sure you're aware, "jokes" similar to this one have sometimes been picked up by the press, and can paint Wikipedia in a rather unfortunate light -- it's something we have to take very seriously, to protect the hard work of thousands of volunteer contributors, ensure that millions of readers are getting accurate information, and even to ethically treat the subjects of our articles. If you're here to help, you're more than welcome to. That said, your current attitude seems to suggest you feel entitled to deliberately damage this project, which isn't something I'm inclined to support. You might try again when you've had some more time to think about this and calm down. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Really just shits and giggles on my part. I do however understand what you as admins have to do, but in this case the punishment does not fit the crime, so i respectfully request at least a fair defined block time. I'd rather see 6 months then indefinite. Alembic (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)