User talk:Donald The Goose

January 2014

Hello, I'm Ged UK. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ged UK 13:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nigel Farage. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Skr15081997 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:Skr15081997. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Seaphoto^Talk 03:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:Seaphoto. Seaphoto^Talk 03:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Independence Party

Hi Donald. I have reverted your changes to UK Independence Party because you didn't provide any rationale for deleting a huge chunk of sourced information. If you have problems with the way the lead is worded, you may want to bring it up at Talk:UK Independence Party to discuss it with other editors. Cheers. Ish dar ian 03:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you are telling lies. I have engaged in a majority of constructive and sourced editing? Please give me another chance. Donald The Goose (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment

Stop harrassing Seaphotos. Jim1138 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't I asked him a quesiton and you deleted it from another users talkpage twice!!!!!!!! Unbelieveable hide you have. Donald The Goose (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have used my account for things other than 'vandalism' in fact I only vandalized one article and did plenty of other constructive editing Donald The Goose (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Perhaps, but the vandalism you did commit is quite sufficient that we don't want you around anymore. And it's neither cruel nor unusual nor punishment; it's protecting Wikipedia from people like yourself. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:25, 25 January 2014 (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.

I have also realised blocking me 'indefinetley' may be unconstitutional as a crual aad unsual punishment. Donald The Goose (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

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).

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

Request reason:

According to WP:VOA the first block can be temporary. 'Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy'. Given that I engaged in constructive editing and I am a new editor, can someone please reconsider and give me a second chance? According to WP:BLOCK: Blocks should be used to:

prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;

deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;

and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

with my minor jokes how can I possibly fit into this category? I am ready and willing to try to do the right thing and focus on editing in the future. I had no idea Wikipedia took vandalism so seriously.

Decline reason:

With your "minor jokes" being blatant vandalism and your personal attacks to multiple editors, I see no reason to give you a second chance. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2014 (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.

But you are ignoring Wikipedia policy? I will appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Donald The Goose (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to one positive edit you have made? Ish dar ian 08:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly can. Click here to see an article I cleaned up the wording on: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Gay%27s_the_Word_(bookshop)&oldid=592201078

and here I removed a defunct category https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Minister_of_State_for_Competitiveness&oldid=592144587

Donald The Goose (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category you removed is not defunct, however, I admit that the edit you made to Gay's the Word was constructive. In the unblock request below, you state that you vandalised two of the articles that I cannot abide due to my sexuality. On Wikipedia, all editors are expected to maintain a neutral point-of-view, regardless of personal opinions. The edits you made to Nigel Farage and Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch are of greatest concern because they violate our policy on the biographies of living persons.

After looking at your brief history, you really don't understand how Wikipedia works. Mark Arsten's original block was completely proper. You received multiple warnings from three different editors, and then promptly told one of them to fuck off. If you are really, really sincere about wanting to edit Wikipedia, then you should have a good, thorough read of WP:5P and the linked pages within. Iff you read those and still believe you can contribute positively, then leave me a notification here by using [[User:Ishdarian]] and I will help you work on getting unblocked via mentorship. A word of warning, though: The process will be long. It will not be easy. And there is no guarantee of being unblocked, but it may be the best option you have. Ish dar ian 09:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chance

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).

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

Request reason:

I am willing to change and I believe I deserve a second chance. I have only been on the site a matter of 24 hours and I am already banned for good. I also believe Wikipedia policy encourages administrators to give second chances. As I already stated, I had made some productive edits so I am unsure why I fit into this 'Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy'.' Please also check my contributions and you will see I only vandalised two pages of the far-right UKIP and Nigel Farage a homophobic and racist party that I cannot abide due to my sexuality. I am not the worst vandal and I deserve a second chance.

Decline reason:

The fact that you're justifying your vandalism because those two pages are things you "cannot abide due to [your] sexuality" shows you should not be unblocked. only (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2014 (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.

A serious false allegation. Donald The Goose (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's false about my allegation. Here is where you said you cannot abide by those pages because of your sexuality. only (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was admitting what I did was wrong, perfectly in line with policies and regulations. Why should that count against me? Donald The Goose (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

Dispute Resolution Process Help

Can anyone assist me? I wish to utilise the dispute resolution process WP:DR. Can someone tell me how I go about this? I wish to raise the ignoral of Wikipedia policies and the astonishing indefinite ban for vandalising two articles. Donald The Goose (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]