User talk:Slemcal1/Archive 1

Archive 1

November 2008

This is your last Warning, please stop reverting manipulative edits to your rv in Sam Concepcion, Wikipedia is not a website, second you dont have a references, third your edits were all peacocks.Again Please Stop reverting edits if you dont want to be blocked, just contribute with proper source in every paragraphs, just see [Angel Locsin|this], in its every sentences it has a source,your edits, has'nt. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. This type of edit will get you blocked regardless of "who's right" in your on-going apparent edit-war. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please stop removing content from User:Wynchard Bloom's user page, its vandalism. If you have misunderstanding, please discuss it in his talk page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not reviewed his contributions yet but deleting his page is a sort of retaliation, which isn't good for all of us here. If you continue deleting his page, someone will revert it, and you will only look "bad". If you feel his doing edits against the WikiPolicy, then we have proper actions to that. I hope that helps Slem. --Efe (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 03:54, 18 November 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).

Slemcal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wish to contest my block as i know that i have vandalised the users page Wynchard Bloom but i still find he doesn't receive the same publicity as the people he has been editing and so i find it still a good way to "retaliate" however i admit i am wrong as i should've been more cautious and i do apologize for that. In addition, i do believe that it has been that same user who has been vandalizing celebrity pages on WIKIPEDIA, reverting all edits contributed by fans and deleting majority of the content and making comments such as "peacock" terms were used which is to why he has reverted the edit. These "peacock" terms are not evident in any of the pages he has contributed upon on (or should i say vandalized). Wynchard bloom has been our frustration in the past following days and perhaps weeks as he has only done non beneficial editing to pages that do meet Wikipedia's criteria wherein he should be the one who should be blocked. please investigate upon this issue. "This is your last Warning, please stop reverting manipulative edits to your rv in Sam Concepcion, Wikipedia is not a website, second you dont have a references, third your edits were all peacocks.Again Please Stop reverting edits if you dont want to be blocked, just contribute with proper...t. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)" please review his Edits Thanks

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether or not you think you were right, your edits were highly disruptive. You made inexcusable personal attacks against another editor, and your contribution history shows you were using multiple accounts in a severe edit war. I find it quite astonishing you weren't blocked previously for that. Because of the sockpuppetry, I am now extending this block to indefinite length. You may continue to appeal, however please note appeals should focus on your conduct, not that of others. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:08, 18 November 2008 (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.

You can't apologized to the vandalisms you made with my talkpage and userpage for almost three times, also your not needed in wikipedia, coz your contributions are for blogs, but you dont know that wiki is not a blog! You'll be blocked forever and ever, Amen. Also a fault of yours is that you keep on reverting speculative edits to you revision which is wrong, you did it to Sam Concepcion almost many times and i know that you own many IP's which are now blocked because of your many wrong edits with Sam. You have no chance to be unblock, You deserve it!. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That will be quite enough out of you, Wynchard. Trolling editors who are blocked is quite incivil and markedly unfair, since they are unable to respond. As for whether or not he has a chance to be unblocked, that will be determined by administrators. Please remove yourself from this talk page if you have such a problem with this user, and return to making constructive edits elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I do. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 10:18, 18 November 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).

Slemcal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this is my second appeal for an unblock. This is in regards to the "edit war" that i might have incurred in Sam Concepcion's page. I didn't have any intention of disruptive editing as all i wanted to happen was to revert the edit back to its original state. The "edit war" that i supposedly started can't really be considered a war. At first i didn't know what to do because of my unfamiliarity with the system and so i used undo for all the edits that were done for the past Week which made it look like i was rebelling. I made two accounts during the big edit i did on the page and i am not in denial of that. It is obvious that Slemcal and Slemcal1 are the same users from just even looking at the name. so i really had no intentions of sockpuppetry. Secondly the edit war wasn't really incurred by me as i didn't start the major edit done to the page. Now i am locked from doing anything as well as making a new account or even editing. There has been a user who did a recent edit and now is being accused of us being the same person. It is not me and i have not made further edits. As i said, i have not made any accounts due to the ban and i am more cautious of my actions. I have also stuck to using only Slemcal1 after i made it and have nearly forgotten Slemcal. It is not in the rules (correct me if i'm wrong) that you are only allowed to make 1 account but still it is evident in the name that there is nothing to hide. Anyways, I have been doing research and its stated somewhere in Wikipedia that apologizing is a good thing to do. So i apologize to all those that i have disrupted and vandalized and i guarantee you that none of these will occur again. I have learnt my lesson on how to handle situations like this. Furthermore i was in the process of writing this appeal on top of my first appeal although i have decided to withdraw from it as i thought i didn't have any chance especially against Wynchard Bloom where he mentioned that i'll be "blocked forever and ever, Amen.". That led to the deletion of my first appeal and like from what i said, i am not familiar with the way wikipedia works and still in the progress of learning. Like the saying goes, You learn something new everyday. Again, my deepest and sincerest apologies to all those affected. Thank you

Decline reason:

Well, sockpuppetry doesn't have to be sneaky. The technical aspects of having another account imply that when one is blocked the other can still function, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to have a "lives" system. You may have more than one account but you have to expressly state so that it is visible to all that you own the account; you can't use this account for edit warring if another gets blocked, so I wouldn't encourage this practice. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:15, 21 November 2008 (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.

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).

Slemcal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is clear that "Editing from Slemcal1 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Hersfold". I couldn't have done any editing after this ban was placed upon me. i even had problems logging on as the password was reset for unknown reasons. Due to my block i cannot request for a new password or make another account or even logon. I'm am still in the process of familiarizing my self to this system. I am now being accused of Sockpuppetry on the account Samsterzai. The person on the page that we are editing is not just somebody with just one fan. He has plenty of supporters, who again, might be inexperienced. Also it states by the last edit before the edit done by what is suspected to be me, that before any more edits done, it has to be discussed on the talk page. I have learnt my lesson and takes more cautious actions, and now from this experience that i have gained, i do know more and not edit at the moment as i am appealing. why would i appeal if i can just make more accounts? and as i said, i am blocked and have been trying to appeal for so long now. It is hard for me to do any editing and now people who randomly jump into our situation is now being accused of me. i made two accounts and it is evident in the name. Slemcal and slemcal1 are nearly identical. And i have explained before about that two accounts in my previous appeal. I am being placed appeals after appeal and it is frustrating. My second appeal is just there to provide an explanation of why i deserve to be unblocked as my ban is set to expire and yet before i am unblocked, i get a new accusation and indefinite extension time. I just don't see how it is possible to sockpuppet in this kind of system. It locks your network and not just the account.

Decline reason:

Ok, I'm willing to give you another chance (I'll consult with the other administrators, but I'm just getting that out there). However, you have to agree to some rules which I'll put below. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:15, 21 November 2008 (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.

Please try to have only one unblock request open at a time. Yours is a complicated case, admins want to take time in reviewing them. I know you feel like no one's listening but someone eventually will act on this one way or the other. Daniel Case (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel Case for confirming that my appeal is being investigated upon on. I apologize for having two unblock requests at the same time as i have been placed with block after block and never really have regained my rights. The first Unblock appeal is there to provide an explanation as to my first offense held against me although wasn't really necessary as there has been a given time and date of my unblock. However, that time for my expected unblock changed when i re-checked after a couple of hours and has now been extended to an indefinite time as to when my appeal will expire adding a new offense that wasn't necessarily my fault. Anyways thanks for your kind consideration and for letting me know of my situation. I'm looking forward to the resolution of this problem hopefully in the near future. Thanks again.

Ok, here's some rules you'll follow in the future:

1. Only edit using one account, no matter how similar the names.
2. Do not edit war with another user, even if they are edit warring with you. Contact one of us instead. You can read on what an edit war is here, and how to get help with one. Just never edit war.
3. Do not antagonize other users. This is not appropriate no matter the circumstances; same with this. And don't take the "eye for an eye" approach like you said here.
4. Be civil. Shouting "I'll block your face" is unacceptable.

Can you agree to those? If so, as I said previously I'd support unblocking you though unfortunately I'd check back every day or so to see that things are going ok. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir. I agree very much to your rules and i have indeed memorized them so that i can avoid situations like this. I'd be happy for you to check everyday as i will still be keeping in touch with you and hoping to improve my knowledge on how wikipedia works and also my unfinished business with Wynchard. Looking forward for the unblock and hopefully you would help me with my further arguments. I now know more now to than disrupt and vandalize pages. Thanks for your kind consideration. (Slemcal (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Also, what about this account? Seems like another sock, as it made the same edits as you... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yah Samsterzai is obviously a sock of him. He again reverted my edits on Sam Concepcion to his fannish and blog type revision. Maybe he thinks that Admin will not block his socks. Huh! Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Like i Said, My apologies to whatever happened. "ill Block you face" warring and all is the result of my frustration over the war. I was relatively new to wikipedia and didn't know the rules and regulations before, which really is the reason why i made two accounts. I didn't know how to revert changes without undoing, which i have learnt now. nevertheless, I have promised that none of this will ever happen again as i have learnt my lesson. after a ban was place on me, i have also mentioned that i was blocked from even logging on and it was impossible for me to log on. Also, wikipedia tracks not only the ID but the Ip Address and therefore i could not have done any editing. Samsterzai couldn't be my sockpuppet as we are not the only ones trying to revert to the original. If you review the history of the page, all i did was revert the article back to its original state, before Wynchard bloom has done contributory edits. Once im unblocked, i have written my side of the arguement as to whether who is incivil and unfair between the two of us. first, im just waiting until i get unblocked. And once that happens, I now know who to consult. Furthermore, Hersfold has warned Wynchard to "Please remove yourself from this talk page if you have such a problem with this user" and yet he is still coming back to make comments. (Slemcal (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

These conditions seem reasonable, provided Slemcal is aware he will be again blocked indefinitely should he violate those restrictions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you check this user my dear Hersfold because Slemcal said that its not his sock, we'll admin see's IP Address used by Wikipedians. If You Slemcal and this user's IP Address were the same meaning your lying and its your sock. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe i do deserve a second chance as after my first block i have never been unblocked ever since. Samsterzai isn't another sockpuppet of mine as i couldn't even do anything with any accounts and if s/he is my sockpuppet, why would i write three consecutive appeals for my unblock and wait for a long time to be unblocked. Also i have read the previous edit done by an Administrator which stated that any further edits must be first discussed in the talk page. As i said, Im not the only person who supports Sam Concepcion. And im not the one who put the article up together, just reverting whatever edit has been done. From this experience, i know that there is no point to edit war, and before i do any changes, i know i must consult one of the administrators here first. As i said, I didn't know anyone before this incident and now i do. Because im still trying to appeal my Unblock, i have taken hersfolds advice and that is "you may continue to appeal, however please note appeals should focus on your conduct, not that of others". so i did what she has adviced me to do and haven't really attacked anyone except just defend myself. And yet i see no improvement with my block. Sorry if im sounding a bit desperate and out of my lines however, to be blocked with no freedom is really demeaning. again i have apologized so many times and never really had the chance to prove myself or even get second chances. I only got one warning and have been automatically suspended from my rights.(Slemcal (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Hmmmm, Sorry but I dont believe with you Slemcal, Only you reverts my good edits on Sam Concepcion and no one. Now your obviously lying, we'll its a reason might admins will not unblock you. Its your fault again. Do you know taht lying is Evil? Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mate, You're making an assumption, which i find you're really good at. I, myself, do know and 100% certain that they won't be similar. I am not in denial and not afraid to defend myself. I know that even though she made same edits as me, Im not the only one you're in "edit-war" with. Take a look at other pages, especially celebrities from the Philippines. Lots are against you and im not surprised is Samsterzai is too. Plus, Haven't you been told to leave this page? hmm i wonder who that person that doesn't understand and takes advices easily is.(Slemcal (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

We'll Banned user I'm telling you not to be dependent that admin will unblock you because as what i said before. You will be Blocked Forever and ever Amen.! Hahaha Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 07:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If this user can agree to abide by policy with the understanding he will be reblocked indefinitely if he fails to do so, I support an unblock. It seems this will happen. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed to abide by the policy and have signed the terms and conditions that MoP has created below. I think i have explained myself more than enough that the reasons why I wasn't familiar with rules is that because I only have started using wikipedia 7-8 days ago and have been blocked ever since. Also as someone stated below, I wasn't even given enough chance to redeem myself nor was i even given enough time to familiarize my self with Wikipedia Policies as well as how the System works before i was blocked. Now i have familiarized myself and I've probably said this so much times now. Sorry to sound antagonizing but I'm still waiting to be unblocked so i can ask questions on your talk page instead of being isolated in this talk page of mine and at least be able to justify myself. From looking at the comment at the bottom by Axxand, he is basically making a point that i haven't been given enough chance especially for a newbie who is not really familiar with the way Wikipedia works. Well anyway, thanks for your concern and i really am looking forward to my unblock as I've spent more time on Wikipedia blocked than unblocked. Well thanks again. (Slemcal (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Slemcal1

Its better not to unblock him/her because he keeps on making new accounts aside from Slemcal, Slemcal1 also created this account, Samsterzai which is now blocked and even if you unblocked him still he will not changed and still he will stil put fannish statements on Sam Concepcion, its better not to unblock him anymore. Its my opinion! Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wynchard, as I've said before, knock it off. As you can see, we're considering that, and working with Slemcal to make sure it doesn't happen again. I would again ask you stop editing here for the time being, and go back to article work. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But I'm just only informing you that he again created another sock, Well if you mean weird for that then I'm very sorry Hersfold. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon reviewing Wynchards comments, Please don't be influenced by this person as i am telling you, i am the one who hasn't had any chances of complaining, only defending myself. Like hersfold said, my first attempt in my Appeal focused entirely on me trying to debunk wynchard while i wasn't in the position to do so. I have been waiting impatiently for the administrators decision and once it my ban has been released, I will not start "edit wars" nor "attack" such as "ill block your face" or even insults. I will put forward my argument once my ban has been fixed and i am certain that it will change your view of our situation. Administrators hold their own decision as to whether who will be blocked or not. If i was an Admin, i would actually find it insulting for someone like Wynchard who is a general user/wikipedian just like me being able to go around saying you will be blocked because he is always the first one to complain to the proper authorities. Before this I didn't even know there were administrators and you guys, Hersfold, Master of Puppets, Dmacks and Efe in particular but from this experience now i do. If you realized, He has been in tuned to whats happening and is always commenting on my situation. Is he even an Admin? He is probably scared of what could happen once i get the freedom to talk to you guys. Also if you have noticed, he vandalized my page and put a "banned" tag on my main. hmmm, acting Administrator ey. Is that legit? (Slemcal (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Its not a vandalism Slemcal, your look like stranger! I only did it to your userpage and talkpage because its a fact, what do you feel pala your not banned from editing, you dont have socks? Huhu, are you dreaming Slemcal. Of course its just normal to put tags on your userpage. And you deserve it! LoL. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh? Hello are you still there? hahaha. are you still acting administrator? you don't know if im banned or not as your not an administrator. And if i was, how come someone took that ban tag off? a fact ey. Perhaps maybe you're dreaming. you're are lucky i haven't reported you as i am still blocked. But i hope administrators can see this and what you are doing to my page. i thought i was the only one disruptive. Wonder what they call that... (Slemcal (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Attention *Administrators Of Wikipedia* Attention

I think it has come to time to just put my argument on my talk page as I am now being attacked here by Wynchard even after so many warnings by Hersfold. I'm writing in regards to the "edit war" that i was accused of for my second block. Basically, all I planned to do was to revert the edits done by Wynchard Bloom and hoped that it would not return back to normal. It looked like I was warring because I didn't know the proper actions i am supposed to make. Between Wynchard bloom and I, I could perhaps argue that he is the one who intends to edit war. Firstly, you can see from his history that he has been involved in many edit wars just recently and notice how he is always first to complain to proper authorities. That is because it is evident that he knows where to complain to and take proper actions unlike us infrequent users/supporters, we don't know any better than to just purely contribute and edit. If you review the history of several pages he has contributed on, it can be seen that he is always the cause of the "edit war". Reviewing his talk page, people have requested to not "edit war" and refrain from editing pages. However he still insists that his revisions are right. His revisions are not as in-depth as the previous revisions and he has deleted majority of the information which he considers "peacock" and "fannish" statements. He has done that to several people and the links are as follows. Sam Concepcion, Sarah Geronimo, Angel Locsin and there are more. That’s just there to name a few.

Between the two of us, I have only involved my self to one page while he is involved in several different pages. From looking at his statements left on my talk page and comments, i would actually feel offended if i was an Admin and there is people out there acting like God Almighty, always updated whether to when i will get banned and for how long. to support myself to what i said, these are his quotes that he left on my page. "please Stop reverting edits if you dont want to be blocked", "You'll be blocked forever and ever, Amen" and "i know that you own many IP's which are now blocked because of your many wrong edits with Sam." Upon going back and forth in my user page while on my block, I have noticed he has vandalized my page also by adding "banned" tags though it has been removed by another user. It is clear he is not an Admin and I believe he doesn't have any rights to do that unless he is an Admin. I also believe he has not been punished for that also.

Perhaps Administrators are in favor of him as he is always the first to complain. I would like to not think so as it is unprofessional however he has been involved in several "edit-wars" while i have only been involved in one and still no one is investigating who really is there to hold responsible. For the record, He started the edit war in Sam Concepcion and yet I was placed on a ban for "edit warring". I was blocked for my first comment/offense and now I have apologized, as well as have done my time for that and now is followed through with two other bans with the last one having indefinite time of expiring. Also his current revision on Sam Concepcion lacks depth compared to the original one. The revision I’m trying to defend (which was gathered up by his supporters) is basically all sourced as this person is still alive and has a growing reputation even as we speak. There is no "fannish" or "peacock" statements evident as the article isn't written in opinion format and follows Wikipedia’s criteria. Also, if comparing his edits to other Celebrity articles, it is clear that he has a biased point of view and is in favor of one particular person, namely Angel Locsin. Obviously, there will be competition between celebrities and their ranking in regards to popularity. We could conclude that from this, Wynchard is probably trying to raise that person's reputation as an actress and give her more Publicity by promoting her on Wikipedia while interrupting and impeding the growth of other celebrities that he may regard to as competition. He has also stated that he is related to Angel Locsin "yes i am a cousin of Ms.Locsin, but why? are u insecure, u better be cautious to wikipedians man, your so rude. Wynchard Bloom (talk)" this can be found on his talk page. Being related results in being biased which only leads to unprofessionalism and is now also implicating Wikipedia and other celebrities. I could further support my argument as to Wynchard Bloom's false statements where he has claimed on wikipedia, in regards to making wikipedia a better place, which is in contrary to what he has really been doing. For example, "just contribute with proper source in every paragraphs, just see [Angel Locsin|this]" and how upon checking, I have immediately seen inconsistency to what he has been preaching and has indeed added information similar to the one he deleted on other Celebrity articles due to reasons such as "unsourced". Sorry for having a lengthy argument, but I just feel he has gone his way and is maybe now time to reveal him and what he is really made of. Thanks for your time. I leave it to your judgment as of to what you would call this. Thanks again (Slemcal (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Don't worry about Wynchard; he's not a deciding factor here. You've agree to the above conditions, but I'd like to add one more; no matter what your opinion is on an issue, if you are reverted changing it do not revert back. If you add something that Wynchard thinks is a peacock term, forget your history; discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise you're the one who'll end up getting blocked. In terms of peacock terms and the related stuff, that can be discussed later, though some of your edits were questionably NPOV.

So, for the record, can you copy all of the conditions above and sign them along with a "Yes, I agree"? Then, when Daniel Case comments here, we will be able to move on. Wynchard, if you're reading this, please do not comment any further on this issue; if you have points you feel should be raised please raise them on our talk pages. Thank you, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have signed the condition below. Also, it is exceedingly clear to me on how to handle issues like this. This message i have left you doesn't have anything to do with the decision of my unblock. It has just been that it has been an on-going saga with this block of mine that i couldn't wait to post this as my only option of posting was here on talk page. I could not take this up anywhere and so i did it here. my intention for this is that I am opening another case against Wynchard after my block has been taken off and would it be possible that we discuss this on your talk page? I do believe that some of my edits were questionably NPOV, however it wasn't me who gathered those information up for the record although i was only there to revert back to what has been on wikipedia for quite a while now although i will revise the rules to satisfy with Wikipedia's Conditions and hopefully correct that. I also won't revert any changes irresponsibly as i now know the proper measures that i will take into issues like this. anyways, thanks for action on my unblock and i am looking forward to my unblock. Thanks again. (Slemcal (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

While I think the Wynchard thing should be dropped, yes, you may raise concerns about it after on my talk page. Thank you for being cooperative! :) I'm now going to try to catch a bit of sleep; I'll check back with you after Daniel has commented. Good night, and thanks for being patient, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreement

1. Only edit using one account, no matter how similar the names.
2. Do not edit war with another user, even if they are edit warring with you. Contact one of us instead. You can read on what an edit war is here, and how to get help with one. Just never edit war.
3. Do not antagonize other users. This is not appropriate no matter the circumstances; same with this. And don't take the "eye for an eye" approach like you said here.
4. Be civil. Shouting "I'll block your face" is unacceptable.

Yes i Agree to these terms and i swear i will not break these rules. (Slemcal (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Thank you. I've notified Daniel Case so that he can look over this; I and Hersfold agree on the matter. You'll be unblocked as soon as he's agreed. Sorry for the inconvenience and please abide by the rules. If you ever have any questions in the future they are welcome at my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really apologetic about what i did and i am very remorseful for that matter as well. I know i have acted irresponsibly which i shouldn't have in the first place. That only explains how much of a newbie i am as it is evident that i only really got into Wikipedia like only last week. i'm so sorry for not knowing the proper actions that i should have taken and only if i can have the chance, i will take back everything i did. It's just thats what sets wynchard and i apart. He knew the rules and before i actually figured out the rules, i was banned from my rights. Again i am very sorry to all those that were involved in this. Thanks. (Slemcal (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

That's all fine, provided you take care to make yourself aware of our policies and guidelines to avoid this happening again. Once more, I agree with those conditions, but please remember should they be violated, you will likely be blocked indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For information of other administrators, please be aware that User:Wynchard Bloom has been blocked indefinitely as a CU confirmed sock of Gerald Gonzalez. Sarah 09:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor's One Peso to this User's Block

I am reviewing Slemcal1's edits summary and found that he/she really is just starting here in Wikipedia, and just created an account on November 14, 2008, just 7 days from me making this note.

These is what I observed: he did not received a Level 1 Warning, instead he received a Final Warning considering he is a newbie--someone who doesn’t know anything about rules and policies in Wikipedia, and mostly the WP:3RR. I am assuming good faith edits of this user as I can see a good editor in the future.

Regarding the socks, he also did not know anything about that rules. I am thinking of it as only Doppelgänger. Since the user did not know that he/she is not permitted to use two accounts, he can be excused in the explanation of a doppelganger where a second account is created with a username similar to one's main account. Such accounts are permitted and should be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to one's own userpage). Doppelgänger accounts should not be used for editing, as what the user explained, he is not using the said account anymore. As you can see, he did not used the Slemcal account (the account was only used on November 14, 2008 only ), and with that reason he is not sock puppeting as he is using the Slemcal1 account onwards on November 14, 2008. I believe he is to be let go of sock puppetry.

I see that with his block, he has learned his lesson and is probably getting used to the wiki world. I believe he has read most of the policies needed by a noob to edit articles productively.

I hope I am of help with admins reviewing this user’s privileges to edit Wikipedia. Thank you. Good day to all of you. Axxand (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Axxand, I am very very grateful for this and you don't know how much I really appreciate what you've said. I just want to thank you for your concern and i was hoping to do that on your talk page however i am still blocked from my rights. thanks again. (Slemcal (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Sorry if I hadn't respond quickly, i am having a wiki interface problem at home and i don't have full access in wiki at the office! I think I'll be having a wiki break for awhile! Cheers! Goodluck to your editing! Axxand (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Appeal

{{unblock|I have technically been approved for an unblock, however it has been over a days wait, and still i see no improvement. I have been told that "You'll be unblocked as soon as he's agreed." and "then, when Daniel Case comments here, we will be able to move on". Its been a days wait now and i think it has been agreed upon on that i am approved for an unblock after being able to prove that I'm deserving. Please administrators, act upon my situation. I have been a sitting duck for quite sometime now since DMacks (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) and i have basically proven myself and how i deserve an unblock. Being a sitting duck is really hard as i have only been isolated to my page in regards to defending while there are people out there (actually just one), Wynchard Bloom who repeatedly filed charges and complaints about me which are only a bunch of False accusations and assumptions. It is now clear who has really been depriving the Administrators from the truth and i hope this is another lesson learnt for all of us. For information of other administrators, please be aware that User:Wynchard Bloom has been blocked indefinitely as a CU confirmed sock of Gerald Gonzalez. Sarah 09:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

Also This is from Axxand who left a comment about my situation, "These is what I observed: he did not received a Level 1 Warning, instead he received a Final Warning considering he is a newbie--someone who doesn’t know anything about rules and policies in Wikipedia, and mostly the WP:3RR. I am assuming good faith edits of this user as I can see a good editor in the future". He has basically summarized my argument and my reason and hope that soon my block would be taken off as we all now know who is innocent. More of this can be seen above.

Anyways sorry for writing another appeal, its just frustrating being in this position. Thanks}}

Sure, you can edit your userpage. Now, in terms of Sam Concepcion and all of those articles; I can't involve myself directly and revert to one specific revision (as this would suggest that I agree with those contents). Otherwise I wouldn't be without bias and I couldn't continue to arbitrate this case. I do encourage you to discuss changes on the talk page of each article and work from there. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I appreciate that you'd like to fix up the article, you can't own it. Everyone has to have a fair chance of improving it (obvious cases of when a page is protected from vandalism aside). You could still do your research with it protected, right? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he still might have had valid concerns. I'd raise it with people on the talk page first. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide me the diff of the version you support so that I can check it out? See Help:Diff for information on obtaining a diff. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikipedia

You might want to contribute there. [1] And oh don't worry Wynchard's socks don't exist there, and never have they did. — Felipe Aira 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re

No, its fine. I was once a newbie and had committed some silly stuffs. Anyway, good that you have been unblocked. Happy editing Slemcal. --Efe (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sam Concepcion

There are multiple issues with this version; I'll list out the ones that I find problematic when I get back from my friend's house. Sorry for the wait! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, ill be waiting. Thanks for helping us out! Slemcal (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, line by line;

• • "Multimedia Heartthrob" is not a NPOV term; should be eschewed.
  • Universal Records should not link to Universal Records Philippines.
  • "... young and famous Filipino singer" is also NPOV.
  • The biography section should be written neutrally and be encyclopedic; filler words such as "inevitably" colour the language unnecessarily.
  • "...easily got the attention of the judges" ; same as above.
  • Career: suffers from same issues as biography.
  • Achievements/awards should be trimmed severely to include only notable, referable stuff.
  • Major guestings should be limited to truly notable performances.

As you can see, most of the issues lie in neutrality; also, there aren't nearly enough sources to verify the notability of this article.

If you have any questions feel free to ask! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wynchard

Hi Slemcal. I removed some of Gerald's edits per the banning policy - Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. I looked at the Sam Concepcion article that you mention but I'm not comfortable restoring your version because I don't think language like "Multimedia Heartthrob", "has steadily risen towards stardom" and "young and famous" is NPOV or encyclopedic language. Also, it lists out unsourced information about not notable minors and other relatives which I don't think is appropriate and WP:BLP has a specific presumption in favour of privacy especially for not notable people. I feel that a lot of that material about award nominations and percentage of votes is unnecessary (and all unsourced). So I'm not going to restore that material and I don't think you should either. When you add material to biographies, it's really, really important that you cite sources to comply with BLP and verifiability policies. Sarah 06:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't revert it back because I believe some of the material in "your" version, especially the personal information about not notable relatives is a violation of the policy on Biographies of living people. I'm in favour of removing banned editor's edit but not when I think doing so would violate BLP or degrade the quality of articles. I think it would be better if you just started working on the article as it is now, leaving out information about not notable relatives and being careful to use neutral language and citing verifiable, reliable sources for any information you add to it. Sarah 07:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have a problem with the image on that article as I don't believe the editor who added it really owns the copyright. It looks like a professional image. We don't allow fair use images on biographies of living people so I think that picture should be deleted as a copyright violation. Sarah 07:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection only stops anonymous editors and accounts less than four days old with less than ten edits from editing. So you should be fine editing the article if you wish. Sarah 07:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"in regards to deleting, and editing, Would i still be able to do that?" - I'm not really sure what you mean by that? Only administrators can delete things. I can't see any reason why you can't edit the article, it wasn't a condition of you being unblocked, was it? If the admin who unblocked you did not say to you that you were banned from the article then there's no reason why you can't work on it if you wish. Sarah 07:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, sorry, I didn't mean that you should delete it (only admins can delete pages and images). I was just telling you for your own information since you are working on the article that I will probably delete it, but I'm still looking into it. I don't believe the person who uploaded it is the copyright owner and their talk page is full of image copyright violation notices and warnings. They've uploaded more than 20 other images which have all been deleted. He was asked a month ago to clarify his claim of ownership but hasn't responded - User_talk:Samster101#Image:SamConcepcion-2.jpg. So I think it will probably end up being deleted. Sarah 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe that person is the copyright owner and they have a history of image copyright violation as well which makes it more likely this image is also a copyright violation. Even if they were the photographer, which I don't believe, that still doesn't make them the copyright owner if it was a work for hire, in which case the copyright would be owned by the studio or whoever hired the photographer. If they return and they can prove they own the copyright to the picture then they can do what everyone else does and write to OTRS and the image will be restored. Point is, they've been given a month to clarify the licensing but haven't done so so the image needs to be removed from Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it makes Wikipedia look better by having those sorts of images. We don't allow fair use images of living people or subjects that there is a reasonable possibility we could obtain a free image of because it damages our mission of creating a copyright free encyclopedia. The only alternative isn't just fan photos - we can write to people and ask them to donate images. That's how lots of Wikipedia images are obtained - by writing to the subject or their management and asking them to consider donating an image under a free license. Anyway, I'm logging off for the night now so goodluck with your editing and I hope you don't have any further problems from Gerald and his socks. Cheers, Sarah 08:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1