RS1900

Edit summaries

Hello RS. Please do not forget to enter a summary for each edit. This helps your fellow editors keep track of changes. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

smile

In some views, I don't like en.wiki: many articles are ministub (such Pinco Pallino is a town in Tajikistan), others are only parts of lists, that cat stay in the main page. Rollback my edit and create your pages. Mojska ^{all you want} 11:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mojska ^{all you want} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No excuse

Sorry, but there's no excuse for what you did and that you *still* don't understand that makes me think you shouldn't have been unblocked. If there's any more of that sort of behaviour, your account will be blocked immediately and you won't be given another chance. So I can only advise you to put it behind you and avoid any repeats of such behaviour in future or you will end up being community banned. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battlefield. Accept that or don't contribute here. Thanks, Sarah 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(after multipled edit conflicts)I checked your behaviour and your contributions myself at the time, as did numerous other admins who reviewed your edits and the block and it was subject of extensive discussion on and off-site so your suggestion that I should have checked with others is silly. You violated Wikipedia's policies and were blocked rightly for it; you've been given a second chance and instead of being productive you come here to moan about a comment I made more than six months ago, that I still stand by, and to pursue your now year-old vendetta against Nick? Sarah 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You *are* trying to excuse it. You just told me you did what you did because of some off-Wiki dispute and that you've never done anything wrong (yet the block log, the histories of your accounts, the ANI discussions and unblock list threads totally bellies that claim. I strongly suggest you use this opportunity to make a new start and leave the past in the past. If you are simply here to pursue revenge or "punishment" for Nick then you are going to be very disappointed because we don't do "punishments" here, particularly not for some private and off Wikipedia dispute. Now, if Nick posts personal information about you, *then* we will have something to talk about but at this point you're asking me to take your word for what happened in some private dispute and take administrative action based on it? Also, you say this happened in "June-July 2008" yet we are only just in June 2008 right now, so I can only assume that you are talking about June-July 2007, i.e a year ago? If that's the case, then just get over it already! Please! No admin is going to "punish" Nick for some stupid thing he said but didn't actually do 12 months ago; sorry but that just isn't going to happen. You need to learn to leave your off-Wiki disputes off-wiki. This isn't a battlefield and it isn't a venue to pursue revenge or a vendetta. If you are here to contribute to building this encyclopedia, then please go and edit the encyclopedia productively; but if you are just here to pursue revenge then you need to go and find something else to do elsewhere. Sarah 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that spamming all the administrators and editors who participated in the discussion more than six months ago is not the most productive thing you could be doing? If you are here to contribute to Wikipedia then you should leave this in the past and go and start editing. Unfortunately, it is looking to me like you are unwilling to leave it in the past and instead want Nick to be punished for something that happened a year ago and to pursue it with every admin who was involved with your rightful block. Sarah 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)well, I am glad that you intend being a constructive editor again. I think you would get off to a better start, however, if you left one year old incidents in the past and just resumed editing instead of pursuing each administrator who participated in the discussion last year and pressing for "punishment" for Nick for a one year old off-wikipedia dispute. This seems to me to be a very bad way to resume editing as it is just going to bring unfavourable attention on yourself but as you wish. Thanks, Sarah 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to spamming all the administrators and editors who participated in the discussion more than six months ago. I just posted messages on your talk page and the talk page of User:Philippe‎. RS1900 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I'm glad that you have stopped because it seems a bad way to return to editing Wikipedia. The facts are that we don't block to "punish" here, we block to prevent disruption. Thus there is no justification for blocking Nick for something he said to you off-site a year ago. Nick was instrumental in getting your account unblocked and if it wasn't for him pressing for a second chance for you, it is likely you would still be blocked, so I think you should also put your past disputes aside. I can only urge you to go back to editing the mainspace and forget trying to pursue admins to get punishment for Nick because it's just not going to happen and you will wind up being blocked for disruption again. Specially with the various records of your previous accounts. Please consider going and making useful edits to the mainspace. thanks. Sarah 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent disruptive editing. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 12:49, 19 June 2008 (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).

RS1900 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am sorry. I will not cause any disruption. The suggestions by User:Wknight94, User:Neıl & User:Sarah were helpful. My post on ANB was misguided, but it was in a good faith. Please see: [[1]]. Thank you. RS1900 13:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After reviewing the situation and discussing with several admins and non admins on the noticeboard post that you began, it has been determined to let the block stand. Upon return, please do not continue to disruptively ask for action on your old retired accounts. To help you along those lines and towards that cause, I am fully protecting the user/user talkpages of your former account so that they cannot be edited anymore. Further disruption will lead to an indef block. That is not a threat, merely a reality. —

---

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.

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Other admins, this is being discussed here.--chaser - t 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Gwernol states ---

"He was blocked for deleting the contents of the User:Devraj5000 userpage and replacing it with an inappropriate request to delete the page after being repeatedly warned to leave that account alone."

I am sorry. I thought it was OK to delete the contents of my older account. Please unblock this account. I will not re-open the issues of user page and talk page of my former account. Thank you. RS1900 14:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not cause any disruption & I welcome helpful suggestions from administrators. Thank you. RS1900 14:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RS1900, as you've read above, I've declined your request at this time based on the Noticeboard discussion. Upon the block expiring in a few days, please note that I will be the first one in line to reblock you if you continue on this (rather strange and misguided) crusade to "erase" your former account. I believe you when you will say that you will not cause any further disruption upon your return. My helpful suggestion is to move past this. Once you are unblocked, you have every right to blank this talkpage so that this all goes down as history that you can move past. Do not blank it until after the block expires or it will end up fully protected from editing. Please visit my talkpage if you ever have any questions or need assistance in how to help build Wikipedia instead of disrupt it's editors. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

Possible sock-puppet of Freedman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.21.47 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)