User talk:Necrosporus
|
February 2010
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dwm has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://syslogblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/tiling-wm.html, http://devnulll.blogspot.com/2007/05/dwm-debian-howto.html (matching the regex rule \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Some suggestions
[edit]There is no guarantee that you will be re-instated. However you must read the following pages thoroughly. WP:Notability, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COI. Editing requires adhearance to these policy pages and guidelines. What we may think is irrelevant. You must use solid sources to verify what is said in the article. Contact me at my talk page if you need help. JodyB talk 18:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- As promised, I spoke with the administrator who blocked you, User:Blueboy96. Neither he nor I am comfortable unblocking you at this point. JodyB talk 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request
[edit]
Necrosporus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked by user User:Blueboy96 here for actions of Mclaudt, but I'm different person (and it's easy for administrators to check my IP address). If User:Mclaudt violated some WP policies, it is not a reason to block people who haven't violated Wikipedia policies and don't going to. I'm not going to violate Wikipedia rules after unblock. Additional details of my unblock request: * Only warning I get myself is «ballot stuffing», but since AfD is not a majority voting according to Wikipedia rules, there is no ballot to stuff. If you consider that warning (see WP:AfD/Dwm) as valid, point me to rule stating it and I would not do it again. * What I did — I added several sources to article to prove its notability. I suppose, adding sources is improvement to the article and since my sources was not removed, it probably is. * There is a precedent to unban other user falsely identified as a Mclaud «sockpuppet» here. I suppose, my case is similar, so consider unblocking me for same reason. * If you have any reasons to don't unblock me, please state it on my talk page and add my page to your watchlist to make me able to discuss it without need of any additional special templates and other special actions. * After unblock I planning to help improving articles about free software and some programming languages. Also, I'm planning to participate software related discussions and maybe some other discussions if I feel myself competent with.
Decline reason:
First, you need to understand the difference between WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. You're clearly violating WP:MEAT which means of course your IP address is different ... they're different people. Second, a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN are different - you're blocked until the community is certain that the disruption has been stopped. Re-adding improper links (I mean seriously, user-written articles on blogspot as a resource?) is disruptive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
>You're clearly violating WP:MEAT
Do I recruit people?
> Re-adding improper links (I mean seriously, user-written articles on blogspot as a resource?) is disruptive
What does it disrupt? If you read that articles and feel that link is not useful for Wikipedia, you are free to remove it from article.
And my argument still in place — I haven't intentionally violated any Wikipedia rules, so there is no reason to keep me blocked.
- Some rules (citation from Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers) for this case:
Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.
Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity and to our project.
Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them.
Necrosporus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's completely unfair to block someone for actions of other persons. Also it's not required, because you can just ask me to stop if I'm violating something, clearly standing, what is the matter of violation and why do you believe it is. If you unblock me, I don't going to be disruptive anyway.
Decline reason:
I'd prefer to wait until the AfD discussion that was being disrupted is concluded. When that discussion is over, if you are still interested in volunteering at Wikipedia, please feel free to ask again. AfD discussions usually take about one week. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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 seems to me like using blocking to ban a user from a certain topic while ban requires Arbitration Committee rulings. I also wonder how Necrosporus' participation in discussion could be viewed as disruptive. Deletion policy states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.". Necrosporus can't disrupt deletion process by explaining his opinion and providing links which he view as notable. OckhamTheFox (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Necrosporus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Discussion I was banned from (I found it unfair, as I can't see any arbcom decision) is now closed (see also my talk page for details)
Decline reason:
In real life, people do not get let out of jail because the building they were convicted of breaking into burns down (in other words, someone who disrupts one discussion is blocked to prevent them from disrupting other ones). But that's a moot point anyway since the block is for meat puppetry, and this request does not address that. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Dear Mr. Daniel Case, you should know there is no exclusion of "discussion disruption" among other block reasons which can be appealed according Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Moreover, this guideline would be useless if en-wikipedia staff would think that user once blocked for vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming etc will continue this once unblocked. Even in jails people are usually spent definite time. P.S. Wikipedia:Blocking policy states that blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. OckhamTheFox (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Necrosporus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no reason to keep me blocked, since last reason is now invalid. I haven't disrupted anything and was blocked for actions of other user. I'm not going to disrupt anything after unblock, but going to improve Wikipedia in ways I can accomplish. And I know, why Blueboy96 decided to block me, but I find that understanding of Wikipedia rules wrong (as I read corresponded rule from other language wiki and found it's stated more clear, without that ambiguity, "if there is doubt, is alternative account same person, or other, it can be treated as same person"), and going to propose changing WP:MEAT policy, because it can be understood as recommendation to block innocent people. I agree, some my actions was questionable, but disagree, it was disruptive enough to block me. And administrators promised to unblock me when discussion will over. It now is.
Decline reason:
Your behavior is clearly indicative of meatpuppeting, and will not be tolerated here. Moreover, nobody promised to unblock you. They advised you to request unblocking again when the AFD was over, and it will be reviewed. It has been reviewed, and declined. Further unblock requests will be considered disruptive. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Unblocked
[edit]I have unblocked this account. The likelihood of further disruption is low, and we can and must be better at handling new users than this. Booting new users off the project permanently for relatively minor mistakes is not a good idea in any way shape, or form. I'd like to extend my apologies to Necrosporus for this sort of welcome, this really isn't how things are supposed to work here. henrik•talk 09:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Henrik, thank you for unblocking Necrosporus. He is new to Wikipedia and doesn't aware of it's rules. Now he is. P.S. Necrosporus is active in Russian Wikipedia for now. Thanks to so called canvassing which actually promotes Wikipedia rather than substantiate any harm. OckhamTheFox (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)