User talk:Efrange

User:Bbb23 The article was not at all 'inappropriate.' I quoted from both newspapers and books, even having the individual's own words to describe what the situation was like for them. Even newspapers quote individual's comments. I fail to see how doing so made the article inappropriate. Maybe it is inappropriate because you do not agree with it, if so, I am sorry.

Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa is just one, of those who survived the holocaust of the Orthodox (exceeding 65 million Orthodox were systematically killed, in this last century, in Russia, Romania and elsewhere), and his name should be respected. There are pages already on Wikipedia with 'effusive' accounts of the Jewish and Armenian holocausts, and yet, what of the Orthodox? I do not understand why wikipedia would be so against the article I wrote, which was appropriate, which was trustworthy, and which gave a glimpse into what millions suffered. If there was a presence of a tone, and you did not like the tone in which I wrote, maybe you could have left the facts there, and instead edited the article according to what is deemed well on this site.

Frankly, there was no reason to block me unless you believed me to be a spammer, because you could have easily been constructive with my work: building it up rather than taking it all away and giving me no ability to reply. You could have also contacted me directly. But if I'm the one who must be blamed, because I am not a higher-up, then let it be.

______________

User:Bbb23,I was unaware that anything I contributed was copyrighted and all my sources were cited. If it were biased, I also do not see where this could be.

I gave the article to the Wikipedian who kept redirecting it, to read it (I did this also because I am aware that the Wikipedian can delete it when they're done reading it), because I did not understand what she was finding wrong with it (considering the article was much longer and more in depth than the latter.) I posted it to my sandbox because I thought that's what the use of a sandbox was for: for putting up and saving drafts of articles you hope to later publish. I am also unaware that I was notified to any discussion at WP:ANI.

In answer to your last question- why I wanted to vanish and then become unblocked- the answer can be found in your own words: "vanishing is sometimes permitted to editors "in good standing", which at the moment, you are not." To get in good standing, I would need to have the block notice lifted, and so then vanish. Please stop ascribing to me malicious motives. Maybe I made ignorant mistakes, but I am not someone who is seeking the pollution of Wikipedia with slanderous or unseemly articles. Thank you. Efrange (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified of the ANI dicussion. You get a very big orange banner when a new message is posted to your talk page. It is hard to believe you did not see it. The sandbox (not soapbox) is a place for experimenting, and it can be used to develop a new article, but in your case, you stuck the article there after it was clear it was an inappropriate article. I don't know whether your motives are "malicious", but I'll assume they're not. However, an editor can be indefinitely blocked even if their behavior is not malicious. Wikipedia welcomes new editors whose objective is to improve the encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. As already stated, that doesn't appear to be your objective, either before or now. If your only purpose in being unblocked is to be able to vanish, I doubt that would satisfy the criteria for vanishing, but that's not my call.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

An account should not be blocked when no reason is given. Of course, you have said the reason for blocking me was for disruptive editing, and yet, how was my contribution of the article disruptive? What was disruptive was that it was constantly being redirected or rewritten, without any discussion or collaboration with me. However, it seems that I am the one punished. If you believe that my blocking is just, then please describe with the specifics of my offenses (not simply titles), how so. Thank you. Efrange (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your subsequent request to vanish indicates that you will no longer be editing Wikipedia, so this, older request for unblock is presumably left up in error. I'll close it for you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:13, 6 October 2012 (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 appeal to a Wikipedian's Right To Vanish, for my username/account. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish

You need to apply by email - see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing for what you should do. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although adding the {{db-user}} template is part of the procedure for vanishing, you would have to add it AND leave the block notice intact (remember my warning). I might also mention that, per policy, vanishing is sometimes permitted for editors "in good standing", which at the moment, you are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to your question above the block notice and your similar question in your unblock request, a summary of what led to your block is at this discussion at WP:ANI. I believe User:The Blade of the Northern Lights summed it up when they said you were a "classic example" of WP:NOTHERE. Your goal here was not to improve the encylopedia but to push an agenda. In so doing, you committed copyright infringement at least twice, You created an article to replace an existing article and redirected the existing article to yours, not to mention plastering the article in appropriate places despite the article's clear deficiencies and non-neutral content. You never once discussed your edits with anyone. The final straw was that despite being notified of the discusion at WP:ANI, instead of participating and explaining yourself, you continued to edit disruptively, including placing the entire article on another editor's talk page and also putting it in your sandbox. The only thing that puzzles me is why you wanted to vanish and now you want to be unblocked. Neither is justified, in my view, but it is somewhat odd. In any event, I'm not going to unblock you. However, another admin will eventually respond to your unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declining

We don't usually delete user talk pages, especially where there is a block in force. I'd advise mailing again, but remember that everyone is a volunteer and the people concerned may not have caught up yet. There may be a problem over vanishing, as a "courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return" and "Contributions, logs, signatures, and user-page templates (for example, templates related to blocks or bans) are usually not removed. User talk pages are usually not deleted.". Peridon (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out to me that, although you placed them in a different order than the usual chronological order, your request for unblock was made after your request to vanish. Your unblock request doesn't address the reasons for your block in any way that would give me confidence that unblocking you would be likely to lead to a better encyclopedia, however, so I'm going to leave my 'decline' in place. Please feel free to ask again if you learn more about good-quality research writing and collaboration, and thus develop the skills you'd need to be more helpful as a Wikipedia volunteer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the off chance that you ever look back at this page, I will let you know that the content you posted at George Calciu has been deleted, as it was blatant copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]