User talk:GalingPinas

An unfortunate series of Events in WP

(This is a personal opinion/comment and observation on WP that absolutely relates to WP and should not be censored!)

My first article in WP, the very first I wrote about Circball was deleted. A modified userfied copy is still being edited atUser:GalingPinas/Circball. The delete was a mistake because DGG did not applying the proper WP:ANN guidelines on article creation whose article has been widely publicized outside of WP. He insisted on his own interpretation of notability and counted votes just to delete the article.
I tried to do the normal appeal process of a DelRev as per suggestion by DGG. Yet I am not able to defend the articles deletion because some admin by the name of Guerillero started a Block ANI on my username. I'm eventually blocked from editing, except here.
An Mfd was also placed on my userpage User:GalingPinas because for some reason, a user named Tarc doesn't like the article I wrote and is not willing to contribute to make it better. Instead he wanted to just banished it out from WP and relegate the article to YMCA and had made a personal campaign to banish myself and everything that I write from WP using all kinds of harrassing and vandalism tactics. The most unfortunate thing about this is when I appeal to administrator for help me stop this harrassing/vandalism acts by Tarc, I was retaliated to by an ANI to ban.
Talking to all who participated in the Mfd, a group "gang/herd" mentality emerged just because now other admins try to get into the act of censoring my article from my userpage becase they thought that a deleted article from an Afd should also be censored/banished from userpages (without providing specific WP guideline disallowing backup copy of modified articles to be save due to WP editor application inadequacy.) None of them was able to provide such policy.
It was suggested that the content I posted on my userpage be converted into a Personal Statement which I immediately complied with knowing that would satisfy the so-called "not belong here" comments on unsubstantiated policy. Yet, this compromise idea was even turned down by the "gang".
One of the admin even says it very succingtly that if he would respond to my comments, he would end up "Cursing me off". I believe that was Guerillero, whom I reminded on the discussion that ad hominem attacks such as that would cause him his vote not counted as consensus. Did it pissed him off further? Looks like. Should he be banned for saying such personal attack? I think so, if there is fairness in WP. But it looks like he will not be penalized for that comment because...well you already know.
It only leaves one conclusion. And the conclusion??? I will leave it up to you. But conclusion is very obvious and unmistakable.
>Board of Directors of WMF, if you're reading this and I hope you do. This is a personal appeal by an insignificant NEW editor who tried to contribute to your strategic goal of 50,000 articles by 2015. A very aggressive delitionists have taken over your project and I doubt that the goal of 50,000 new articles and 200,000 new editors will reached by 2015, if this continues. I will bet a dollar that it won't.
I been banned for a year, so see you back in a year. Nothing will change then, unless I see concrete steps taken by the above users who contributed to this... An unfortunate series of events in WP.

GalingPinas (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

circball

Responded at some length on my talk p.. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do it tonight or tomorrow, but I shall immediately send it for AfD. --we'll see what the community thinks--it's nothing personal . DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again, see my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User page

I took the liberty of blanking your user page. You already have User:GalingPinas/Circball which is where userspace drafts should be worked on. Placing copies of deleted articles right on one's main user page is not a good idea. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring this to WP:ANI if you do not blank that page. You do not need a backup, its not like your workspace copy is saved on an 80's-era floppy disc that could suddenly go bad at any moment. As for "policy", I believe it falls under common sense and a willingness to abide by a community decision that the original page failed our standards. I'm sure there is an actual prohibition on doing what you're doing somewhere though, as I have seen many WP:MFD type discussions end in the removal of copies of deleted pages displayed in this manner. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the original deleted article. This is just a backup copy of the most recent revisions of an article that this user is working on to preserve formatted text because WP Editing application doesn't have an UNDO button. That's why a backup copy is necessary. Please do not delete unless you can point me to a very specific WP policy disallowing backup copy of article in its own userspace that is not indexed anyway.GalingPinas (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point here. If you really, really want some sort of pristine copy, move it to User:GalingPinas/Circball-original or something. If you're looking for guidance, WP:STALEDRAFT may be applicable. If you insist on keeping it, I will nominate it for deletion, no need for ANI after all. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? And btw stop your threats and just do what you need to do. I haven't seen you make edits to improve this article, yet you waste your time on something insignificant. Stop wasting time, instead contribute to this article, otherwise, you may waste your time on other user's page! GalingPinas (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's an undo button. You can also click on the "history" tab at the top of any page and then click on the date fields to the left, where you can view the article as it was at earlier states. Or revert back to one of those version if so desired. There is absolutely no need to set aside a perfect copy like this. Again, I say if you really want to, please do so in another SUB-page of your user-space. Do not use the main page of your user-page to do this. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still didn't answer what's the difference. It's the same user space!! Instead, if you can refer me to any WP edit applications that has UNDO capabilities then this would be unnecessary. Using the "history" tab is inadequate. Also, reverting back to previous version is inadequate as well because we're talking about real-time editing that has UNDO capabilities. GalingPinas (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that your main UserGalingPinas page is visible to everyone. Per WP:UP, this page is not supposed to be for the hosting of deleted articles. I have pointed out that you can do what you're doing in another sub-page, but you have refused, therefore I am in the process of filing a call for deletion at WP:MFD. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! subpages are also visible to everyone, so what's the difference??? NONE!! Again, as indicated on my first response. this is not a hosting of a deleted article, but a backup copy of an article currently in edit for text format purposes. You have not shown me a specific WP guideline that prevents backup copy in a userpage. You just want to do things your way without specific WP policy. You make all kinds of references to un-related policies that has nothing to do with this specific isssue-ie, backup copy of an edited article for real-time undo purposes!! you have not even suggested an alternative editor that will allow UNDOs either. Please spare me your threats.... again.. if you have nothing better to do, please spend you time making this article better or go someplace else and leave me alone!! Is this what you do in wP? Harrass other editor? Should I then file an ANI if you don't stop your harrassment?

Hello from Anna

Hello my friend, and welcome. Sorry to hear about your troubles. Maybe I can help.

This Circball sounds very interesting. Whether or not it should be an article is not why I'm writing. It's just that keeping a copy in your userspace, especially on your userpage, seems to be upsetting the community. I don't want to say why it should be removed or who's right or wrong, or anything like that. I'm just writing to ask why you want it in your userspace right now, instead of, say, on the hard disk of your computer. If it's there, nobody will bug you. :) What do you think? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna... thanks for droppin in... yes, i can easily put it on my hard disk or do what Tarc says to subpage it. But the reason i'm keeping it here is because I want to make a point that nobody can easily harrass anyone and censor anyone from WP just because they don't agree or like what the article is all about. I have gotten a lot of accusations being a new user here and it's coming to point that I ask myself, is this really what WP is all about? where they say that the more they bite, the less inclination people will stay in WP. That's what I'm feeling right now. It's nothing personal but sometimes it feels like it is. Talc actions were unacceptable. And I hope it doesn't escalate to a bigger issue. Just curious, why is it upsetting to the community? What is upsetting? The posting? the article? I have search the guidelines and I couldn't find any that say one can't post a backup copy of a modified article. Maybe you help direct me to that specific guideline and I'll abide. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GalingPinas. Well, you seem like a very nice person. :) I'm very happy to meet you. There are all sorts of editors here. Some are sort of curt, while others are more gentle. I prefer the latter. I'd rather seek your understanding, and hear what you have to say, that cite policy and make demands. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm always looking for the fewest keystrokes in solving problems, and retaining editors who might otherwise be put off and never come back. I think it's worth it for me to write for 5 minutes to encourage you to stay and be a happy editor for years.

Let's look at the individual matters:

First: The article. Should it exist in the mainspace? That's up to the community. If they, as a group, say no, well, we lump and accept it. It's happened to me.

Second: The article in your userspace. If it's in a subpage, it sort of still means that you want to give it another go at the mainspace sometime in the future. That's not so bad. Maybe you can work on it, and it will be acceptable.

Third: The article on your userpage. Well, that's really not good for the project. Even though visitors can see the template, it can still confuse them. Many visitors are non-native English speakers, or new to the Internet. We try to keep the mainspace and userspace really distinct in appearance. WP:FAKEARTICLE is the policy, but heck, just good old human consideration is all we need to know what's best.

Fourth: Handling the matter. Easy peasy. Be the bigger person. Be cool. Remember Reservoir Dogs? Mr. Pink said "#@%!# it. It's beneath me." Well, that speaks volumes. Doing something in protest and fighting always loses. The best plan is just to voluntarily remove it to your hard disk. Prep it for another go if you really think it worthwhile. Then, my friend, help me make nice articles. :) There's more to Wikipedia that this one article.

Now for some sympathy. Tarc, who is reading this right now, won't mind me writing this because he is a tough cookie and can dish it out as well as he can take it. My very first experience here three years ago was with him. It wasn't pleasant, and I almost left. But I didn't. He's sort of the pitbull of Wikipedia. I don't like his methods one bit, but he does keep a load of very problematic editors in check. You are not one of them. You are one of the good ones.

Please, take my advice. You are a nice person. This is a good way to proceed:

Dump the article on your hard disk. Work on it in your own time. The fight is beneath you.
Don't leave or hate Wikipedia. It's actually filled with really nice creatures. There are border collies and puppies too. Not all pitbulls. :)
Start to create nice articles with me. I promise you will like it and have a wonderful experience, and stay and be happy.

So, what do you think?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll think more about what you wrote in a few days. Right now it's been a long crappy day :(. One thing though I will always insist on is that unacceptable behaviour ought to be "nip in the bud" before it gets worse. And if Tarc is reading this, he should make a public apology for the unaccepable behaviour. Anything less than that would be acquiescence to what you have experience 3 yrs ago. I will not tolerate it. Let him write an article of apology for his bad behaviour posted in the Main page and maybe i'll consider.GalingPinas (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I understand how you feel. For me, it's important to see the difference between a mode of conduct and the case being made. My guess is that you're annoyed about the former, and the userpage article is a protest in reaction to that. Why shoot the project just because you're mad at Tarc? From my chair, with respect, the best plan is to separate the two things:

1) For the sake of the project, remove the article from your userpage because it is upsetting the community, is disruptive, and is basically an article sitting on your userpage where articles don't belong, and is there in protest. Remove it because you care about the visitors, and the millions of editors who, like you, are good people.
2) Write to Tarc on his talk page. Give him a good blast. Demand an apology. He will respond by deleting the post, and leaving an edit summary which will infuriate you.

Then, forget about the whole thing, and don't make it into a crusade which keeps you up at night and stresses you. The world is filled with evil concentrations of wealth, cancer, and over-fishing. In a world where we must pick our battles, this one doesn't even make the list. There's nothing more I can really say about this. I've done my best here. Good luck, and I hope you stay, and hope to hear from you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Thanks for the suggestion. I have posted a demand for an apology on Tarc's talk page and on the Mfd. No one is more upset here than me for his unacceptable and harassing behaviour yesterday, tantamount to Vandalism or as one editor puts it "Censorship". If he doesn't like the content of the articles I write, he can harrass someone else. In good-faith, I have moved half of the backup article on another subpage as suggested by everyone in Mfd, I will move the other half upon Tarc's completed public apology. GalingPinas (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I say something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead.. No one is "censored" here :)

Anna, with regard to the third bullet point of your second post above, who do you think will be reading GalingPinas' user page and mistaking it for an article? It's not indexed by Google so the only people visiting the page will be following a link User:GalingPinas. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, just to clarify, the original intent was to place a backup copy of a modified article that was userfied by DGG for Edit Apps issues in this userpage. And, as Anthonycole points out, is not indexed, nor accessed by anyone else but me, unless someone clicks the link User:GalingPinas. It was a temporary fix until the article is completed and moved into its proper namespace afterwhich it would be deleted as indicated by the red box notice. A draft template was also placed on top to notify all that this is not an article. But this original intent was aggressively pursued by a misguided presumptions of Tarc who originally voted to delete Circball article. The vendetta against Circball continues unceasingly into this userpage and even into now the userpage's Mfd. From Tarc's response, he will not apologize for anything. Very unfortunate. This article will stay here then until the Mfd discussion is completed!GalingPinas (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony and GalingPinas: Yes, I think you are right about the nonindex thing. I'm sorry. But, I will always dislike user pages that appear as articles.

It may be true that your article is being chased off the project. But, I'm not sure about your reaction. Ages ago, you could have responded with four characters: s-u-r-e, and moved it to a sandbox, worked on it, sourced it with everything out there, slipped it back in, and trusted the community to allow it to stand.

Now 50,000 characters have been typed, and hours of reading have been spent on this matter. If you're mad at Tarc, take it up with him. Now, you are losing the support of the community. Plus, protesting and soapboxing never, ever ends well. It won't acheive the desired outcome. This is about outcomes, right? The expected outcome now is that you, the project, and the article will lose. There is a better way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not about outcomes. And I don't have any preferred outcomes. But yes there's a better way and what's the better way? I think the better way is measured as a result of articles being included in WP. That's best way. Let me test you then, Anna, if you said that you are a Friend who wants to help. Between now and Christmas, could you take ownership of the User:GalingPinas/Circball article, review it, comment/add/delete/edit, etc and post it as well written article to its proper namespace before Christmas day? How's that for the challenge?

All these issues about userspace, deletions, protest, etc are miniscule compared what's really important in WP. I'm currently writing an essay on Deletionist/Inclusionist in relation to WMF board of directors stated goals. We'll see how that goes.. Are you willing to take this challenge?

As far as Tarc's fit about Circball, I'll just let it run its course and not lose sleep on it. I know how to tame a pitbull!:) I did take your advice to take it to Tarc and demand an apology. As usual, the pitbull doesn't want to back down. I'll just wait until the discussion ends. But one thing is for sure though, he's no longer an ideal mentor as far as I am concerned. And if I ever need his opinion, I'll just scrape it off the gutter. Nothing personal :). So, do you want to take the challenge? GalingPinas (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not about outcomes, what is it about? What are you trying to accomplish?

I decline the challenge. You are calling on me as a friend, while using the project I hold dear as a pawn in order to extract an apology from someone. Plus, circball just doesn't seem notable. I checked. I'm seeing youtube and facebook sources out there. And it seems like it's being hyped by people involved with it. Please trust the judgement of the community. This article would never stand at Encyclopedia Britannica.

I didn't enter this fiasco to take sides. I've been trying lately to see if a gentle approach can resolve issues with fewer keystrokes, and result in a happier editor who will stay and be productive in the future. Where do you stand on this?

The gutter remark sounds like a personal shot. Not too nice. Call him a pitbull if you like. I suspect he's rather enjoying that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you how I feel about this jer*&^@^k! He is not a nice person from an online perspective. He did it again just now, trolling my page and making un-warranted edits. How do I ban him from my page? any suggestions? You're the one that suggested to extract an apology from him.

So you decline? I thought so. I'm not surprised. Presumptions about this article's notability is premature as shown by other editors. You're no different. Just because it seem non-notable doesn't mean you can't work on it. I'm not talking about putting it immediately in mainspace. Contribute. Just like you asked me to contribute to your articles! This is not a one-way request. But forget it. I often wonder if you guys read policies anyway. Oh and Hype what? Do you have any objective evidence of that? Or is this just hunch? Conjecture? Thoughts? I don't think so. I doubt that you guys can show you can really understand notability guidelines anyway based on their comments on Afd and Mfd so far. Purely subjective conjectures! un-supported by analysis of policies. If the judgement of the community is poorly subjective, then it can't be trusted. Community ought to follow established policies and guidelines, not the other way around nor its own interpretation of it, something that is lacking in most of these supposed "editors" I call them pseudo-editors because credibility is lacking & questionable just looking at their attempts to interpret notability. Sorry just my very critical observation of them to date. This may change as time passes when these pseudo-editors get their acts straight. I have no plans to go to Britannica.. but if you guys bite some more, that might as well be. GalingPinas (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would respond to your statements if I thought there was some hope of you abiding by community consensus. I don't foresee that, and I don't think you will end up being a constructive editor here in the future. In fact, with personal attacks "...this jer*&^@^k! He is not a nice person...", you just might end up blocked. I'll save my keystrokes for the mainspace. I'm done here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt at clarification by an uninvolved editor

We have the policy shortlinked as WP:FAKEARTICLE because there is a long tradition of people whose articles were deleted posting copies of them to their userpages, formatted in a way that makes them look like legitimate Wikipedia articles. Because of the brevity of its URL, the actual userpage is particularly likely to be mistaken for an actual article. Thus, it is standard policy that drafts (however many you want) be kept in subpages, not in your actual userpage. Your actual userpage should be where you tell us about yourself: who is GalingPinas? What (outside circball) are her/his interests? What are her/his areas of expertise, strong ideological or philosophical beliefs, affiliations, etc.? What are his/her life experiences that will help us appreciate his/her contributions to this project? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike: Thanks for the clarification. However, I must disagree with the WP:Fakearticle. The content in my userspace is not a deleted article. Even though Circball was deleted for non-notable, DGG gave me permission to modify the article and make it better. I'm doing that under another subpage. However, while editing this modified potential article, i run into Edit App issues one of which is loss of editing data. Therefore, a backup copy was placed in the main userpage subject to Draft and with a Big RED note saying what it is and why and when it will be deleted. So no, the WP:fakearticle doesn't prevent a backup copy of a potential article to be copied into the main un-indexed userpage. However, it was discovered that subpages are indexed, therefore not the proper place for the backup copy. In my opinion, there's nothing in the userpage that an editor can place about him/herself that help users appreciate its contributions, as demonstrated by the harrassing behavior of Tarc.GalingPinas (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'd would rather that we use Facebook to learn about users and their profiles that are not mascaraded with cryptic usernames unlike in WP, if they so chose to make them public. And at least in Facebook, people LIKE you :).

Respectful request

As an uninvolved editor, I respectfully request that you move the copy of the deleted article from your user page to a sandbox sub page. This gives you all the benefits with none of the disadvantages. Your user page is how you present yourself to the entire community. A copy of a deleted article is likely to bother a large percentage of experienced editors. It bothers me a bit. The resulting controversy bothers me a lot. You can end the controversy by moving it to a sandbox. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the respectful request. Request is denied for the following reasons:

The content on User:GalingPinas is not a deleted article.
The content is a backup copy of a modified userfied article of Circball due to deficiencies in WP Editor Apps.
The content in the User:GalingPinas is not promotional/advertising.
The content in the User:GalingPinas has been clearly labeled as backup copy of a modified article currently in edit.
The content in the User:GalingPinas will be deleted upon completion of the modified artcile being currently edited.
The content in the User:GalingPinas is not an article as labeled by the Draft template.
There is no current WP Policy that prevents backup copy of non-articles on userpages.
WP:FakeArticle doesn't apply in this case as the content is not an article. It fact it bolster the fact that drafts can be kept on userpages on a short-term basis. GalingPinas (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is GalingPinas. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:GalingPinas/Talcharrassmentrecord

User:GalingPinas/Talcharrassmentrecord, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GalingPinas/Talcharrassmentrecord and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:GalingPinas/Talcharrassmentrecord during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 22:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name

Hi. I don't know Tagalog, but I was wondering, does your user name mean "Clever Filipino"? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means "From Philippines". But I'll take Clever too :)GalingPinas (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thanks for correcting me. You are clever! BTW, if you need help with Circball, I would be happy to lend a hand, but I couldn't find any good sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I'd like you to take over the article writing of Circball if you can please. The draft is located at User:GalingPinas/Circball. You're free to edit. I think it's ready to move to mainspace. Please do so at your convenience. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for good faith inability to edit in a collegial fashion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:48, 18 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is premature. I'm still responding to my DelRev at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_17#Circball that I requested per suggestion from DGG. I have to be able to defend myself in that Deletion Review. What are you guys doing???. This really unfair! I also have to respond to the ANI that was brought against me. I have to respond and defend myself against that too... Please unblock ASAP! GalingPinas (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been blocked because of your continued insistence on recreating a deleted promotional article on a non-notable topic, and attacking everyone who tries to explain that the article is spam and the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Any successful request for unblock needs to address those behaviours. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

How do I defend my article on a DelRev appeal if I cannot respond to them? Can't you guys wait until the process is over on that discussion before making any action? This is very unusual and it points to one thing and one thing alone, a seeming retaliation by admins who were offended from a civil discussion. There is a fair process for this and this is not a fair process. Circumventing the appeals process by censoring my username altogether runs smack against WP of no censorship. Please unblock NOW!GalingPinas (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the reason for blocking, and also includes a dash of WP:NOTTHEM. You're not listening to why you were blocked - your combatitive attitude being one reason among others. Please read WP:AGF, WP:N, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, and WP:GAB before appealing your block again. In the meantime, you can post comments on your talk page if you wish to respond to AN/I comments, and an admin will repost them there if necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 18 December 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

How do you propose to address these issues if you take away my ability to post. What is it exactly that to want me to do specifically? Also, can you block/ban Guerillero as well for his personal attack on me on a DRV forum today? He should be penalize as well just as you're penalizing me for personal attacks. Also, please block/ban Tarc for his harrasing/Vandalizing actions yesterday. He continued to harrass me even when I asked him to stop. You can see the history of his attacks/vandals/harrassment on his talkpage. I'll be expecting two blocks/ban from these people today. Please confirm today... GalingPinas (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've pretty much ignored what User:The Bushranger said and took it to a further extreme of talking about other people instead of *YOUR* behavior. Q ^{T C} 06:14, 18 December 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Answer the gaddam question. What is it that you want me to do exactly? you want me to pull down my pants? give you a finger? what? what do you want me to do? GalingPinas (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests aren't for us to tell you how to behave, it's for you to understand and demonstrate us that you understand the policies of Wikipedia. The Bushranger gave you a list of suggested policies that would applicable to your situation, and the bottom of every declines links to a guide on how to properly appeal blocks. Since it's evident you have done none of this suggested reading and continue to fail to conduct yourself in a civil manner, I've removed your ability to edit this page for the duration of your block. Q ^{T C} 06:38, 18 December 2011 (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.

If you still think you've been treated unfairly, your remaining course of action is appealing to ArbCom by following their appeals procedure. Q ^{T C} 06:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GalingPinas for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine WikiCon

You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]