User talk:Necator~enwiki

Blocked

Your behaviour leads me to believe that, sincere though you undoubtedly are, you are either unwilling or unable to work with others productively. Your obsessive attempts to get your own preferred text into an article, in violation of WP:OWN, your focus on the individuals with whom you are in dispute rather than the content, and your ultimate belief that you are a bearer of The Truth™ rather than accepting that others views may be valid, constitute disruption well beyond the benefit you bring to this project. I would suggest to you that you are probably in the wrong place. if you want to Right Great Wrongs, the place to do it is your own web site, not Wikipedia.

For now, however, you are blocked. I'm guessing you can be unblocked when you show signs of understanding why what you are doing is wrong, and come up with a credible suggestion of how you can resolve the conflict by compromise rather than belligerence, which is all you've tried so far. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I am the root of all evil. And Jtrainor is an angel. What about benefits, as I've got from list of Jtrainor's cotributions, edit wars is his usual behavior. BTW, just now there is one more case opened for mediation with Jtrainor [1]. There were wikiquiette alert as well [2]... And if you think I am a POV pusher or something, why don't you let me finish this by bringing it to final step arbitration, coz Jtrainor is just rejected to participate in mediation? (here) So arbitration committee could ban me as a result. At least it will be decision of many, not your own. But it seems like you are not considering the possibility, that you could be wrong. Necator 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring to your preferred form of words. Saying "look at the bad man!" does not change that at all. The plain fact is, you made no attempt to seek compromise, and your only attempts to resolve the dispute were in the form of forum-shopping to try to drive away the editor with whom you were in conflict, in order to gain an advantage. ArbCom are not going to accept that as a case. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU told me that Jtrainor is pushing NPOV and I have MPOV. I don't know how did you make this prejudgment, not even looking to the case detail. And I tried to explain you, that you could be wrong in your estimations about me and that user. But you didn't even want to listen. All I've got as an answers is something like "what part of "stop" were you having trouble understanding?" I think, when you blaming someone in something you should be ready to explain that and maybe have some more constructive discussion rather than shouting "shut up! I am the truth myself! The second after the god!" And please don't talk from the face of ArbCom. You are not even a member. Considering my behavior, I've done several parts of dispute resolution (RFC, mediation). So now, please, let ArbCom decide what to do with that. Necator 10:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/S-400.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

totally biased admin. see my talk page for details

Decline reason:

Insufficient request, see User:Sandstein/Unblock. — Sandstein 23:33, 3 November 2007 (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.

Do not delete unblock requests. Sandstein 00:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change previous requests either. Instead, post a new one below. Sandstein 09:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it says "Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request." Ok. I have to add new one.

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).

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

Request reason:

Totally biased admin. I'd like to bring this to arbitration committee. See my talk page for details

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you had demonstrated that you do not understand how to work peacefully and politely with other editors. This unblock requests makes it clear that you still do not understand how to work peacefully and politely with other editors. It therefore clearly communicates that the block is still necessary. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:07, 4 November 2007 (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.

It's not clear to me what the supposed bias is. I have never edited any article that you have edited, as far as I can see, and Jtrainor is mainly an editor of popular culture articles, which I also do not edit; I cannot see an article in his mainspace edit history that I have even read, other than the disputed article. What you appear to be saying is that your response to being blocked for personalising, forum shopping and escalating a trivial content dispute, is to further personalise, forum shop and escalate it. Did you actually read WP:OWN? Guy (Help!) 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the article, but you called me POV pusher. [3] Thats what i did mean by biased. And you didn't even want to talk constructively. Always answered something like "shut up!" [4] What about my presumable "forum shopping", what do you exactly mean by that? going through WP:DR? Or asking admin attention? If the last, I've got a suggestion about that from wikiquiette. [5] Maybe you would like to blame user, who suggested that in forum shopping as well? Regarding triviality of the content dispute, it's all explained on the article talk page (which you probably did not read as well) [6] If you would like to have further information about that, you could find history of that wikiquiette alert. What, I'm sure, you not going to do as well. Because unfounded blames, and "ban" button is something way easer to do. And WP:OWN is definitely not about me. I just want to make 1 (one!) change to that article, which, i believe, will make this article closer to NPOV. And i have a sources for that change. I could say again that my opponent refusing to discuss, ignoring WP:Verifiability and just reverted the page. And he got a wikiquiette alert about that behavior. But you will blame me once again for personalising. Will you? Necator 15:27, 4 November 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'd like to bring this case to arbitration committee. See my talk page for details

Decline reason:

No reason to unblock you for this. You can simply email a member of ARBCOM. However, Kwsn should feel free to override this decision if he wishes (and if you promise to only edit the WP:RFAR page). — Yamla 16:23, 5 November 2007 (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'll unblock only if you promise to edit the WP:RFAR page and the talk pages of those involved. If I or anyone else sees any edits outside those pages, you will be reblocked. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Necator 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:An-225 3-view.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:An-225 3-view.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Necator. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Necator~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)