User talk:Mandrake00

May 2013

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Veganism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rklawton (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for 3RR; multiple accounts, as you did at Veganism. 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. Rklawton (talk) 04:03, 30 May 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).

Mandrake00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Rklawton: Shed ignorance and accept the truth. Since when is the honey Vegan? Don't abuse your rights. Is this a Quality Database or the Political forum of the people like Rklawton?Mandrake00 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:40, 30 May 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.

Wikipedia: End Administratorship. Revoke All so called "Administrator" rights or be doomed. You are sending away contributors and letting the so called "administrators" misuse their rights.

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).

Mandrake00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking true contributors like me for the sake of the selfish so-called administrators who distort the facts is harmful to the authenticity of Wikipedia

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:51, 15 April 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.

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).

Mandrake00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, it is already distorted.
the block is no longer necessary because I don't understand why I have to be blocked for trying to correct the distorted information*will continue to help Wikipedia to restore distorted data*#will make useful contributions as I have always done.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for a violation of 3RR policy. I make no judgment as to whether you were correct or incorrect; this is irrelevant in a 3RR context. If you feel that information here is wrong multiple reversion is the incorrect way to correct it; talk page discussion, and possibly referral to ANI in the absence of agreement, is the way to proceed. Are you prepared to accept the entirety of this statement as truth? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:29, 15 April 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.

Jpgordon, Yunshui and Anthony Bradbury, I thought about this account minutes ago after seeing the Veganism article pop back up on my WP:Watchlist with this edit; I thought about it because Rklawton's indefinite block of this editor never sat well with me. Do see User talk:Rklawton/Archive 4#User:Mandrake00‎ and 3RR and what Alison stated in that short discussion; I am the editor who brought the block to her attention, via email (the one she refers to in that discussion on that matter). While Mandrake00 shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including by the unblock requests above (though the third unblock request is the best), keep in mind that, by looking at Mandrake00's very brief edit history, it's easy to see that Mandrake00 is essentially a WP:Newbie. Is indefinitely blocking a WP:Newbie for a WP:3RR violation, when that WP:Newbie has otherwise contributed okay-ish to Wikipedia, a good thing in your opinions? I would rather Mandrake00‎ use the Mandrake00‎ account and improve as a Wikipedian instead of WP:Sockpuppet and not improve.

SlimVirgin, Viriditas, SummerPhD, Betty Logan, Alexbrn and Helpsome, all usual editors of the Veganism article/talk page, do you have anything to state on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is not the sole reason for this block; check the block log. An indef block was necessary and appropriate to prevent continued disruption, as Mandrake00's subsequent postings have demonstrated, and I endorse Rklawton's original block. Mandrake00 is free to request unblock on this page, should he tire of using it to host his rants. However, continued unblock requests like the ones above will see his access to edit this page removed as well. Newbie or not, if you don't abide by the rules you don't get to edit here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, yes, I know that the block log states, "Violation of the three-revert rule: 3rr; multiple accounts; disruptive editing." But Mandrake00 was not WP:Sockpuppeting; Mandrake00 was editing as an IP and then logged into his account; the reason that his editing was WP:Disruptive is because he was removing/changing content without explaining his edits and WP:Edit warring. Otherwise, it is a content dispute. We have a lot of Wikipedians that have been blocked a few times or a lot of times, which shows that editors who have not abided by the rules have had chance after chance to edit here. And yet this editor is indefinitely blocked? It is one of the worst blocks I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree here, I'm afraid; I don't think it's a bad block at all. The appeals above have only served to convince me that Rklawton was right to make this an indef in the first place. The standard offer is available to Mandrake00, and if he would like to compose an SO unblock request I'll happily put it to the community on his behalf; however any request for an unblock needs to come from the blocked editor. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many WP:Newbies have made unblock requests like Mandrake00's unblock requests; Mandrake00 needs a lot of mentoring in Wikipedia ways. Yes, agree to disagree because this remains one of the worst blocks for reasons that Alison and I have made clear. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And many - all, I would guess - such requests have been turned down. We have a lengthy guide to composing an unblock appeal, and appeals which conform to the recommendations there are usually granted. Appeals which fail to address the issues raised and simply claim unfairness, bias and abuse are declined, always.

In any case, no administrator is going to unblock Mandrake00 as a result of your appeals - while I appreciate your concerns (even if I disagree with your conclusion) and applaud your willingness to step in and offer your opinion, the fact is that until Mandrake00 himself addresses the issues raised and composes an appeal, the block isn't going to be lifted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking is one thing; softening the block length is another. While I appreciate you giving your opinion on the matter, there was nothing at all valid about the block; even in the case that Mandrake00 is unblocked and it turns out that he should be indefinitely blocked again, it would not make that original block a good block. Just as your opinion on this matter won't be changing, neither will mine. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Mandrake00 has satisfied jpgordon's requirements. It's not worth considering unblocking a user who is so unwilling to make even the smallest effort. Rklawton (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Phi compen cct.JPG

The file File:Phi compen cct.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]