Snookerhorn

{{unblock}}

To the self-proclaimed messiah (i.e. "Lar"):

I am rather offended not by your command (I can see you are simply power hungry), but by your lack of thought and attention in this matter. All other wikipedians organize their talk pages in a manner they see fit. The only difference, of course, is that they do so after the edit has been created, whereas I provide guidance to users on how to organize their edits ahead of time, in the interest of removing uncertainty and inconsistency. For example, I have oft experienced placing an edit on a user's talk page, only to have them move it into the order they see fit, or change or remove its heading so it fits under a different string of commments, which they have usually organized under prescribed topic heading. Ultimately, this is all my guidelines asked for. The small addition was that they organized for me persons with different calibre of thought, so that I could read the edits of users with higher cognitive skills, who followed instructions, before reading edits of users who with poor and disorganized cognitive patterns, like yourself. Obviously, the instructions weren't quite as "complicated" as you made out, since users like Dtobias were perfectly capable of following them, on the first try, and providing an example to any other user of how to do so. Of course, you failed to recognize this because on its face, this talk page looks "different" than others, and because attempts to handle the issue of organization before, rather than later simply blows your mind. In any case, I will be watching your edit history with great pride, knowing that to be consistent, you must now wade through the mass of other wikipedian's talk pages, reverting all edits by users which changed the original method of "interaction" between users(see your post to this page - created 16 April 2008 @ 13:55 - for this madate). I expect this may take thousands of man hours and piss off thousands of users; yet, I will know by this that what you posted here actually had substance, and that you actually believe what you have said. Oh, no need replying to this message! Anything you write will be ignored and deleted immediately (per the rule in your post to this page, dated 16 April 2008 @13:55). In fact, this will remain the only edit that will appear on this page from now on. Enjoy wikipedia, and thank you for making this a better talk page for everyone! Snookerhorn (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthday Party for Snookerhorn!

Hello, everybody! As you know, I will be turning 75 this april! I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you (certain persons excluded - see my exceptions list) to attend my party this April 25th at NAS JAX! I look forward to another year of prosperous retirement, and can think of nothing finer than to share it with my fellow wikipedians from NAS JAX and with all of you! Finest wishes, Snookerhorn (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions:

Lar

Blocked

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.

Clearly this ID is not currently contributing productively to the project. Take a day to think about how best to fit in, edit collegially, and make constructive contributions, and then try again, minus the insults. Blocked for 24 hours. Note that your other socks (of which there are many) have not been blocked for now. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Policy?

Greetings,

Does this block not violate WP:Blocking in that Lar was in a content dispute with Snookerhorn at the time of the block? Should another Admin not have instated the block?

Also, The phrasing of 'taking 24 hours to think about it' sounds sort of like a cool down block? Wjw0111 (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wjw,

Thank you for responding. I don't hesitate to say that most of the admin/block guidelines you pointed out are probably "too complex" for these ops to understand. In any case, I doubt the ops really care about the rules, anyway. What seems more important, per Lars, is that I figure out "how best to fit in" (i.e. somehow breed the years of government training & service out of me and become a disorganized, disorderly individual). I mean, these ops did not even open discussion as to how to change the rules, or seek comprimise - it was just a "you don't fit in". They just discovered my page, and couldn't tolerate the fact that it was different. In addition to what you pointed out, I noticed that "WP:TPG" states, without exception, that users may remove content from their own talk pages; however, I have left this comment by lars because I have learned I have to follow what he says instead of what the rules say. Thanks for your post. Finest wishes, Snookerhorn (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes tend to apply to content, rather than user talk pages, and involve disputes. If an admin couldn't warn and then block, we'd soon run out of admins. For reference, it's highly unlikely that the rules and practices around how talk pages are used are going to be changed, so there wasn't much to dialog about. Also for reference, it's "Lar", short for Larry, rather than "Lars"... In general, I'm pretty sure my block was entirely within policy. If you want another admin to review it, place {{unblock}} on your page along with an explanation of why you should be unblocked. For reference, you may want to review this thread, and possibly, if you think it seems appropriate, participate there once your block expires. Or if you like you can participate there now with one of your other socks, as you see fit. I only blocked just this one sock. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just place the tag at the very top of this page? I am not sure I understand what you mean but I suppose I will experiment with this. What do you mean you only "blocked one sock"? What is that supposed to mean? If you think this is equivalent to trading punches then just tell me the time and place. I'll knock your socks off.

Put it at the bottom in a new section for best results. Start a section, place the template, and fill in the reason (as the blocking message explains)... if that's not clear, click on the unblock template tag itself to read more. As for what "blocked one sock" means, read WP:SOCK for more information. As for "I'll knock your socks off"... that could be construed as a threat. Best not to go there. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying i can make a "sock" to edit on the above page during the block? I don't get it. Does this mean that the ban doesn't actually apply? It doesn't matter - don't bother trying to explain on here. Don't worry about the tag, either. I will wait until my friends who edit wikipedia regularly arrive on base tomorrow to help me with it. It will probably be less complicated than trying to explain it on messages on this page. They will probably understand how to do the "sock" thing you suggested more easily than those insructions suggest. Although by then, I suppose the ban will most likely be over! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.82.231 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You already HAVE socks, and I'm aware of them, I just didn't block them... This one time, I chose to block only this one account instead of all of your socks. It's moot now because your block has expired and you should be able to edit normally again. I would strongly suggest that you keep in mind the matters raised to you, though. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my self-imposed wikibreak is hard to maintain, perhaps I am a wikiholic. I would just like to point out to Snookerhorn that though I had concerns, you cannot without exception remove content from your own talk page, as you state. WP:BLANKING shows that you cannot remove block notices while the block is in effect. That is the rule. You may remove warnings and comments (not edit, but remove), however you may not remove the blocks or sockpuppet notices. I'm going to consider my involvement with this issue to be done, however. I was just concerned not over the legitimacy of the block, but of its possible irregularities with the blocking policy. Now, I'm returning to my wikibreak, hopefully until April 25th when I return. Cheers. Wjw0111 posting as 99.232.55.67 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Supervox2113 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)