User talk:Krusty111

Image Tagging for Image:2841-drive.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2841-drive.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:2841-drive2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2841-drive2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Craig Cove Airport, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Craig Cove Airport was changed by Krusty111 (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2008-01-27T19:45:06+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please dial it back a notch

Hi Krusty111,

Please approach your interactions with others in a slightly less aggressive way. I have no idea who is right in your underlying disputes, but Status has been here a while, and does good work generally, so he isn't a vandal, and he's not trying to "claim credit for himself", and odds are he's going to be right about this too; or at least have a good point to make. You're both trying to improve the article, so please hash out any disagreements on the article talk pages, rather than call someone names in edit summaries. If you're right and he's wrong in this particular case, that will soon be obvious to others (and Status too) after a calm discussion on the talk page.

Finally, you say he's been bugging you by email. That would be surprising, unless maybe you're referring to the messages he left on your talk page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Krusty111. You have new messages at Floquenbeam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Important that you reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Glassheart

Headlining a festival doesn't mean the performance is part of her Glassheart tour. That's original research and synthesis. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my job to moderate all articles. I chose to edit a various cross section of articles for various reasons. You need to show me a rule that says that festival performances "MUST" be included as part of a tour. People choosing to include them on Kelly Clarkson or Nicki Minaj's tour is their prerogative. That doesn't make it correct. There might be occasions where it might be correct to include festival performances as part of a tour, yet in this instance Leona is performing ~~on the headline stage of~~ at a relatively ~~unknown~~ small festival. The only reference to the Kew gardens performance is Kew website itself here. Nowhere does it say that Lewis is headlining or that she was a full set. Equally it is original research. You are assuming that the performance at Kew Gardens is part of the tour because it falls at the same time of the year etc. Unless a reference is provided it is not and will not be included as part of the tour. This is the second and final time I will ask you to not include such information as it is a synthesis of references and assumptions. If you wish to bring this up further take it Talk:Glassheart because the reference doesn't mention The Glassheart Tour anyway. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed Scarborough in subsequent edits. And its not WP:ABUSE, as this applies to IP address users. I politely asked you to not to include the Kew Gardens performance to which you provided a rambled response which cited other artists tours hence I brought up WP:Other stuff exists because that's the very point of that guideline! Just because its written on another page doesn't make it correct. Also there's no such thing as norm, there's no mention on any project pages that random festival appearances MUST be included on the tour dates. Also when i've been polite, civil and helpful (by pointing out relevant guidelines) please don't lecture me on wikipedia rules. I've been editing for over three years and I've got a number of WP:Good articles and a WP:Featured list so with all respect I know usually know what I'm talking about. WP:SYNTHESIS says at the very top "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the source". In the source (which isn't independent, its the festival itself) it says Lewis is headline one of the stages. Head-lining doesn't mean the concert belongs to you. As per WP:SYNTHESIS you are assuming that because Lewis is playing a set over an hour long and that she is headlining you are concluding that the particular Kew Gardens performance in question is part of her Glassheart tour even though it happens several weeks after the tour ends. You have reached/implied a conclusion that is not explicily stated by any of the source(s). This is the very definition of synthesis, which is not allowed. Nowhere does it state that Kew Gardens is part of Lewis's tour hence it should not be included. For the same reason Scarborough was removed also. Additionally telling you its your second and only other warning isn't a threat, its a warning, there's a distinct difference. If you're unhappy the owness is on yourself to prove that Kew Gardens is part of Lewis' tour because its not explicitly stated in the reference and you're welcome to try and get consensus at Talk:Glassheart for its inclusion but until there's overwhelming support for it, the performance should not be included (nor is Scarborough). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Well that's certainly interesting. After Status mentioned on-wiki that he last emailed someone on 12/4/12, you send me a screenshot of a purported email from him dated 12/4/12, with Status purportedly explaining why he's reverting you. But you and Status had never interacted until much later than 12/4/12. And your last edit before that date was in October, so no one would be emailing you on 12/4/12 about Wikipedia, anyway.

So, you're lying about the email. And when called on it, you doubled down on the lie rather than come clean. Since you've wasted quite a bit of my time looking into this, and casually smeared Status's name, I've determined that your participation here is a net negative, and I'm going to block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2013 (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).

Krusty111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I strongly deny these allegations and even if you do believe I was in the wrong, an "indefinite block" is a totally inappropriate. But as to appease Floquenbeam - "I believe this block is no longer necessary because I totally understand why I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead" --Krusty111 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not make any sense; "I strongly deny these allegations" and "I will not do it again"? Please don't waste our time if you're not going to be honest with us. You are likely to have your talk page privileges revoked if you continue to mess us about. 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2013 (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 "strongly deny" these allegations, krusty, then why are you promising not to do it again? If the reviewing admin wants me to, I can forward the email Krusty111 sent me to you; just let me know. I think lying in order to smear an opponent is exactly the kind of thing an indef block is for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (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).

Krusty111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, I sincerely apologise for any trouble caused and just want to get back to contributing productively to the articles without any trouble from my part. Krusty111 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You tried to get another user blocked from editing by falsifying an email from that user and claiming harrassment. Take it from me, you're not going to get unblocked today or tomorrow, or anytime soon. Recommend you come back in a year or so, when you've worked it out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2013 (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.

Don't you just love dynamic IPs Elen of the Roads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty112 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just stop? I'd take both Floquem and Elen's recommendation and come back in a year or so. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can keep this going 28bytes, can you? Haha! And ΛΧΣ no I can't because now I'm going for principle. And a year? REALLY?! That's ridic by all standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty113 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you have no idea that we can make rangeblocks right? :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocking?! Doesn't seem to have worked :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty115 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (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).

Krusty111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked because I unreservedly apologise for any problems that I may have caused. I have learnt from my mistakes and would like to get back to contributing constructively and positively again as well as behaving in a more respectable manner. Once again, many apologies. Krusty111 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think you made your intentions crystal clear. Unfortunately, once you've set a pattern of duplicitous behavior, it takes more than a simple reiteration of cheap platitudes to regain trust. Given the overt lying and taunting above, you'll need to do better; start with Ultraexactzz's advice below, but I would suggest editing on another wiki somewhere for a long period of time to demonstrate competency. Come back then; and please stop removing context from the page, it very annoying to have to flip back through the history to get the full story. Kuru (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2013 (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.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you've apologized before - and admins at the time (most recently in February) found your apologies unconvincing. What's changed? What exactly was the problem with your conduct, and what assurance can you offer that it will not happen again? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 2 August 2013 (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).

Krusty111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked. I apologise for my past behaviour and can assure you it will not happen under any circumstances.

Decline reason:

Now you're just repeating yourself. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:14, 15 January 2015 (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.