User talk:Disliker of humanities

This is Disliker of humanities's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

NOTE THAT I AM USUALLY EXTREMELY INACTIVE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, SO DO NOT EXPECT A REPLY BEFORE THE WEEKEND

My talkpage

Things that will result in a templated warning once I see them include

Uncivil comments.
Bad faith comments.
Personal attacks.
Posts that bite my newcomer status.
False asumptions.
Vandalism _{^{(results in a level 4im warning if you haven't already had one)}}.

Hiya. Before you give anyone templates for stuff here, you might want to read this: WP:DTTR. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't much matter what anyone else has done. Each of us is responsible for following policies and guidelines. The point of not templating the regulars is that we should try to engage in productive conversation, especially when someone has been around for a while. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things that will result in a non-templated warning once I see them include

Comments about my prejudice towards spelling resulting in having a sharp tongue towards it. You may find this user's comments on foul language useful.

My archives

Welcome!

Hello, Disliker of humanities! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 79.74.59.162 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Insulting edit summaries on Zine

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Zine. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your own preemptive defense of your "sharp tongue" notwithstanding, WP:NOTCENSORED applies to uncensored use of material that was already uncensored in its original form, and is not a substitute for WP:Civil, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith, which it appears you already have heard of before. See Wikipedia:Profanity: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." Thank you. --Closeapple (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

{{How can I set up an archive bot to work via my account?}}

Please click here: ClueBot. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}No, I meant actually running the bot through my account.

You need approval at the Bot Approval Group. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme|My userboxes have gone funny, what's wrong with it?}}

They look fine to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Plumb (singer). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edit summary here is completely unacceptable. You know this, because you had already been warned about language like that in an edit summary. This isn't really acceptable either. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tom Sayle (3rd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

To counter the evidence given, Mr. Bjornovich's archives do not begin with help or concern, Mr. Wattson's knowledge of pi reaches 32 digits whereas mine is 10,000 digits and Mr. Bjornovich's fluency in language is 20 languages whereas mine is 25 languages. Mr. Sayle's rude edit summary was when I tried the same password for his account as his sockpuppet account that I had compromised. The welcome via the IP range was what the numerous compromising of his accounts has appeared to reduce him to.

Decline reason:

Somewhere in the above incoherant rambling is the phrase "account that I had compromised". I find that compelling enough reason to maintain this block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{helpme}} I'm sorry I can't understand the unblock reason above, can someone explain it?

The next admin who reviews your block can explain it more clearly. Please don't use the {{helpme}} template for this. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The above reason is not incoherent rambling. Can someone go through it as it counter's all the arguments mentioned on this list as it appears that the last reviewing administrator does not appear to have.

Decline reason:

The reasoning which concluded that you are the same user seems more convincing to me. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 admit that you " tried the same password for his account as his sockpuppet account that I had compromised". So you admit that you have tried to hack another users password? You can take the rest of everything else and throw it out the window. For that reason only, you should never be allowed to edit wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I also hacked this account and this one. Go on, salt my talk page.

Decline reason:

Ok — Fritzpoll (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.