User talk:Nlitement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Nlitement/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  BE GOOD! jacoplane 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your POV

Dear Nlitement, Unfortunately your point of view is not correct. I won't say it is hypocrisy though, it might be rude... I am not, but you are, comparing these two incidents... What I am saying is in these two cases Europian has different standards. I cannot see what is hard for you to see in this? By the way I am not supporting what has happened in some muslim countries. That is wrong too. I do not have double standars... Resid Gulerdem 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Firearms (computer game)

Please consider removing your AfD request for the firearms computer game. It's a highly notable mod: It won PC Gamer's mod of the year, was released on CD from valve, and at one point in time was the #3 most played halflife mod (before DoD came out, and that pushed it back to #4). It's been around for years. I notice from your user page you state you are only 13 years old. Firearms would have been largely before your time. Please see forums.worldatwarmod.com and check the Firearms section for evidence of notability. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Combat: Elite

As per your comments here, it's obvious you flooded AfD with several mod articles as retaliation for your article being nominated. This is unnacceptable behavior, and if you continue to show such aggression, you may be blocked in the future. --InShaneee 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Call it what you want, the fact is you basically admit to doing it to prove a point in SEVERAL places. Whatever your reasoning for it is, the plain fact is that its against wikipedia policy, no matter how you sugercoat it. --InShaneee 04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I would like to ask one person who voted on True Combat: Elite deleting. Do you even play games? Have you even heard about the mod? Have you checked anything about it? Have you seen my phat and big comment where I mentioned a lot of obvious reasons for notability. You don't have to answer. I know the answer. --nlitement ^[talk] 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I voted, further evidence of notability has been added so I have changed to a keep vote. Stifle 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On the same subject, the article was kept per the afd, but you might want to establish the notability further on the article itself (by including some references to it on notable sites etc.) so that someone else won't just nominate it again in a few weeks. Thanks. - Bobet 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 3+ font

Hi, I read over your edit summary on the Grand Theft Auto IV page. I think I know what font you were talking. It is the "Pricedown" TrueType font by Ray Larabie, right? They're the same because Ray Larabie is a former employee of Take-Two Games/Rockstar Games.[1] I have the font and tried to recreate the Grand Theft Auto logo. ;-P --Who What Where Nguyen Why 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! :) --nlitement ^[talk] 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary on FPSBANANA

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on FPSBANANA. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

TomPhil 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at [2]. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. John254 05:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User boxes

{{User PurePwnage}}

LAWLBOOM! Headshot! This user watches Pure Pwnage.

You may enjoy this user box on your use page! Thanks for all your help to the wikipedia! This is a friendly thank you! :) --DragonWR12LB 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You have now been blocked indefinitely. You are been warned long enough so I don't think edit summaries like this are appropriate and you should know it. I will leave a note with User:Jacoplane in case he or someone else wants to help you again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? Sorry, mister, but I haven't conducted vandalism a single time, and ALL of my edits so far (notify me if any of them are not contributive or factually correct) are legit edits. "Fuck off" was because of the overwhelming amount of obvious facts being asked for "citation", and was NOT meant for ANY specific user. Is Wikipedia this full of bull (and I'm using a euphenism because I'm sure you'll refer to "assume good faith" as soon as you see me using my own rhetoric) I'm bothered by bull, so I'm just here, nicely removing and being bold about editors screwing up badly. Ironically, I could write some edit summary to this edit like "fuck, things sure are fucked up pretty fuckily around fucky here" regarding the dumb in the fact that I had not attacked ANYONE SPECIFICALLY! Give me one evidence where I had mentioned a person, or a revision? Oops, there's none. This is the bull I'm talking about. Please, there are better things to worry than to ban some people because of some "behind the scene" metadata with a little cuss and a preposite.. Hint: the "fuck off" was towards the MANNERS and the piece of "" template, not ANY person or any group of editors. Tell me why all my effort in writing good articles, using proper punctuation and spelling, and using a Wikipedia-like style is overseen by admins who only look at some "edit summaries" who nobody really cares about? --nlitement ^[talk] 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is for your continued personal attacks, for which you have been warned sufficiently enough. If you still want to argue and can convince someone else to unblock you for a second time, use the {{unblock}} template and make the argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2006 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It's been a long time since I've used my account, I was only trying to get over the semi-protection in Saddam Hussein to add info that there's also been some short clips released of his body in a white bag (but not the process of death itself, though), and got my IP autoblocked, too. Relevant to unblocking: the reason for a block is false, I never vandalize(d) anything. I'll refer to my last sentence in my previous little rant: "Tell me why all my effort in writing good articles, using proper punctuation and spelling, and using a Wikipedia-like style is overseen by admins who only look at some "edit summaries" who nobody really cares about?". Also, I've been blocked for long enough in my opinion, and I've been doing a few edits there in there as I'm an active Wikipedia browser if I see something's wrong or worth contributing, no work pumping like usually, but all of my input has been useful.

Decline reason:

I can find many inappropriate edit summaries in your list of contributions. I am also concerned that you are continuing to edit the Wikipedia despite being blocked. This is not permitted. I see no grounds to unblock you at this time but the blocking admin has been contacted. -- Yamla 17:02, 30 December 2006 (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 will check with the blocking admin and see how he feels. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a note[3] to the blocking admin asking about this, I will get back to you once I get a response. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I supposed to personally not edit anything at all if I have my IP changed? It feels kind of weird to do it that way, heh. Are you sure about that part? Is the person himself blocked, literally? (Since you can't really know who I am.) --nlitement ^[talk] 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is preferred if you do not edit while blocked. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin hasn't made any contribution since December 8, 2006. I'd also like to comment on the denial of my unblocking: obviously I have inappropriate edit summaries, I was warned for them, and was blocked for them. I may've confused you, though, by mentioning that there was a false reason that I "vandalized" in the block's description, too. --nlitement ^[talk] 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this how fast things go? I seriously can't improve some articles because they're locked and I want to get over this fast, and it's been very long, and still, OVER a month since the blocking admin has even touched Wikipedia with his account. --nlitement ^[talk] 00:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was the blocking admin. I personally apologize for the delay but again, I remind you that you were not blocked for vandalism but for personal attacks and incivility. I can see easily many edits with inappropriate edit summaries. You first have to at least acknowledge that cursing in edit summaries is inappropriate before I will even remotely reconsider my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Alright, it's been quuuuite a long time since I've bothered to have anything to do with this issue, but yeah, I'll admit to everything bad I do, if that's how it has to work, it seems? Regardless, I've been making all kinds of edits to Wikipedia anonymously from time to time, I sometimes need to upload a pic and so I thought I'll request an unblock.

Decline reason:

This does not sound convincing. Also, you admit to have continued using IPs to evade your block. — Sandstein 15:05, 3 June 2007 (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.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tcetest screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tcetest screenshot.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:True combat elite ironsights.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:True combat elite ironsights.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock discussion copied from User talk:Sandstein

Err.. I could make a new account and you'd never know it. Seriously, I've been blocked for a petty "violation" for 8 months now, and I've been editing it since I completely abandoned my account. Am I just supposed to act submissive and completely avoid editing because of a technical limiation? Sorry, you're only blocking my account, not my access to edit Wikipedia. You're not preventing me from sockpuppeting (for the sake of uploading a few damned images that I need now and then). So, what exactly doesn't sound convincing? The fact that I said "fine, whatever you want me to admit to, please, unblock me, it's been quite a long time since my block, I just need my account to upload a few images, so I'd just like to ask to be unblocked." "NO WAY, I see you're totally evading a ban, that's so very evil. Also, you don't sound convincing." Holy $@!#*, but the fallacy is in the fact that there's no effect in keeping me blocked whatsoever, I was just asking to get my username back. Thanks for your hospitality and understanding, I mean, admins are just regular users, aren't they? Oh, yeah, I forgot about the ego they had (yeah, yeah, WPCIVIL, WPCIVIL, but the fact remains that there's still a conflict about admins thinking they're somehow above regular users). In the unlikely event that you'll unblock me, I'd be thankful. But I doubt it'll happen (hence me saying it's unlikely) because I know some people/admins have this problem with my slightly inflammatory personality, giving an _indefinite_ ban. But we forgot something, I can still use Wikipedia. It doesn't even matter, I just didn't think of using my Commons account at the very moment, I can use it to upload images. Other than that and me having to always request others to make changes to locked articles, I'd have all the advantages of a registered user.. aah, but those dynamic IPs! Too bad you only know me by the info I give you, I can create a new account. The point is, there's no reason for you to unban me, as I can still circumvent anything and you wouldn't know it's me unless I told someone. Hell, I might even become an admin some day with that account, unblock myself, and then team Karma would come in and block both of my accounts. The only difference of you unblocking me would be that I'd get to use the nickname I usually use on the Internet and could finally clean up a silly old conflict. Am I asking you too much? I think you're asking me too much.

EDIT: Let me guess, you think I'm "threating you"? Well, that's how I got it when I read what I wrote, anyway, it' still what I have to say, and I'm being very honest with my rhetoric. Sorry, that's who I am, but you can't argue against the fact that I contribute good content. Let me make it really short: "you can't get rid of me, this is really stupid, so I ask you to unblock my account" --194.251.240.117 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the blocking admin has already declined to unblock you. Under WP:APB, I should only unblock you under these circumstances if the block was manifestly in error, which it is not. Additionally, several admins have declined to unblock you, which means you are effectively banned. Your only remaining option is to appeal to the arbitration committee. I would advise you, however, to watch your attitude and to supply them with other arguments than the singularly unconvincing "you can't get rid of me". (We can, by the way.) Sandstein 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

His declination was relatively old. I'm not given any advice whatsoever on how I could get myself unblocked. I'd ask you to consider in common sense how sensible my ban is. E.g. how will unbanning me harm anyone, or how easily one can apparently get completely banned because of one WP:CIVIL violation and because they request unblocking, and admins repeat their arguments. I don't know why someone should be "indefinitely banned" because they were overwrought by (what I saw as substandard edits, if I recall correctly) yet made GOOD Wikipedia contributions (did I vandalize anything even once? Let's forget about my first edit, it was experimental). The two edits for which I was initially blocked: this one, where as you can see, I removed an edit by someone obviously new, and I was simply angered by the content's unprofessionality, I feel jealous that I couldn't leave my summary without notifying about the "unprofessionality" in it, but I just happen to be a perfectionist, human error, I'm just like anyone, and I highly doubt that the editor whose edit I reverted even ever saw my revert. The second one was very inflammatory, but then again, I'm just the type of person who might yell at something (but not at a person directly) if they attempt not to do something appropriately. I doubt that anyone new on Wikipedia making what seem to be one of their first edits looking into the history tab, but that's just a guess. I didn't go their account and be uncivil, did I? No, I never insult people unless I feel there's truly a reason behind it, and I wouldn't insult anyone directly if they made such a silly edit like in those links. It was more of a general curse you might hear in public, they're not out there to stalk and wanting to insult you, they're just venting some pissed emotions. Here's my edits with my anonymous account. Anything block-worthy? I think none. I have no idea what to do from here on. I hope you're not implying by "we can, by the way" that you could contact my ISP because I keep on asking to be unblocked in a civil manner over two inflammatory edit summaries? It seems that after I have a small conversation with admins who refuse to unblock me, they simply refer me to the "original blocker". And yes, I might've missed one or two other inflammatory edits I was blocked for, but I hope, like some other admins have, are not going to avoid decent discussion by just saying "you forgot this and this, so dwell in your block cage". Ricky asked me to (paraphrased) "at least acknowledge that cursing in edit summaries is inappropriate until I even remotely consider my blocking", then, as I've stated many times already (albeit possibly in an unclear manner), I'm sorry for violating WP:CIVIL several times, and would not repeat it if given a new chance. Thanks. --194.251.240.117 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that you will behave more civilly in the future lacks credence, given that you have failed to heed multiple warnings and blocks to that effect. Even in this unblock discussion you have sought to downplay and justify your infractions, and you have also edited anonymously to evade your block. Editing Wikipedia is not an entitlement, it is a privilege, and that privilege is not to be used to "vent some pissed emotions". Please do this somewhere else on the Internet.

Accordingly, your unblock is declined again, you are notified that you may consider yourself banned from editing Wikipedia, and your IP 88.193.241.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blocked. Continued attempts to evade the ban will be dealt with more thoroughly.

You may appeal this decision, by e-mail, to the Arbitration Committee. This thread is copied from my talk page to User talk:Nlitement. Sandstein 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Justify? Not exactly. Look, after blocking, I had not denied breaking any policy. I just elaborated [which I mistakingly saw as being blocked for "vandalism"] that I didn't not vandalize anything. I sincerely ask you to unblock me, as a person, just for the sake of making sense. Is it normal for someone to get banned because of one WP:CIVIL unblock? I believe that my chances of getting unbanned from the committee are good, and what I tried to tell you in my previous posts is that this is really silly. Just focus on this one, just give me a response on this one, and I'll leave the issue behind on your part: Don't you consider it silly that after over 4 months after being blocked, I ask to get unblocked and because of simply asking, I am raised to a "banned" status? Besides that, my violation was extremely minor. I can see SPAMMERS get banned, but not someone like me. Oh, and what I'd like you to consider the most is simply how silly this whole thing is, you or anyone could simply unblock me. Do I sound like I have some sinister plans to break policies again after getting unblocked? Seriously!! Don't you think I'd get the message already? There is no sense in this. Are you telling me that you have no right to unblock me? Then say that to me. Do you think there's ANY risk in unblocking me? Am I going to spread my evil wings and destroy Wikipedia? If so, then you can easily block me, I think you have the power to do that, don't you? I have a feeling as if you couldn't feel any sympathy for me, I need to use Wikipedia. Priorities, priorities. I know you just think I'm someone pathetic (you can blame yourself of giving me that idea). You seem to act threatingly and miss what I'm trying to say. Yeah, this is pretty EASY on you, but I'm taking this issue stressfuly., SORRY; SIR; BUT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DAMNED BUREAUCRACY (WP:BUREAUCRACY); SEE FOR YOURSELF, SO PLEASE, I ASK YOU TO JUST DO SOMETHING SENSFUL. Yes, I'm really stressed out because of something as silly as this. Can't you just give someone a hand? I'm going to say "hi" to you whenever I get unblocked. I'm repeating myself many times already, there's no point in this. I was BANNED FOR SUCH A SMALL VIOLATION I know acknowledge breaking policy, but you just spin the mill when you could unblock me. Alright, after all the messy ways I've worded everything, I just want to ask you something, yes, forgot about my previous "challenges", if you skipped to the last sentence, well done: "what would unblocking me do to anyone? It would only benefit the community and me. And if I broke rules, would it need any more effort than a couple of pages to click through on your browser to block me?". I'm offended and am still stressed by your avoidance of discussion with what I find unnecessary wp:bureaucracy and dodging my questions and blocking IPs so that you wouldn't have to handle this issue. Is it so much that I ask you? I'll give you 10 € if you'll answer me with something else than what you have already. This is not the first time I may have an "argument" with someone about something, I constantly ask them to fully debunk me, and if they do so, I applaud them. Good for them, I feel corrected and am thankful to my opponent for actually doing something.

EDIT: And as it seems as something that didn't come clear in your mind, what I meant by that you can't ban me indefinitely that I have the choice to use Wikipedia as long as there's no way to absolutely identify persons' identities on the Internet. Yes, it's a bit of a smart ass thing to point out but the point just tried to explain that keeping me blocked make less sense than unblocking me, since I CAN do it [the slightly harder way]. I'm not even telling you that I'm going, I just feel that you think that I'm only to be blocked, which I counter to by saying that it's just an account that ALLEGEDLY one person uses. I read about the APB thingie you linked, so I don't ask you to unblock me anymore (silly me), but I do still want your opinion and I would appreciate if you'd discuss with Ricky or someone regarding my issue in GOOD manner (e.g. not telling him to ask Wikipedia sysops to ban my country, more about unblocking me) --194.251.240.117 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that you have been disruptively incivil, and that you have had several chances to improve your behaviour, which you have not used. That's why I do not think that giving you another chance would be useful. Your announcement that you intend to try and continue to circumvent your ban, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy, confirms this assessment.

If you do believe that your chances of getting unbanned from the arbitration committee are good, I suggest you give it a try. Finally, in reply to your query, it is not because of your asking (again) to be unblocked that you were flagged as banned. You were banned already by virtue of the fact that no admin has been willing to unblock you; I have merely made this more transparent. Your other IP is now also blocked. Sandstein 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked twice, both indefinitely, but given the delay I caused in the beginning and the amount of time passed, I'm willing to reconsider. I've unblocked you now, but be warned, any uncivil comment and it'll be an immediate block. Good luck on your editing and I hope that you are a good contributor here! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)