User talk:Troplock

Welcome to Troplock's talkpage.

Odd UAA report

There's this odd obsession on UAA with usernames that have repeated characters in them. You recommended a block on "v9v9v9" for being a "deliberately confusing username". So I have two questions:

What's confusing in that name?
If there is something slightly wrong with the name, why do you consider indefinitely blocking that user to be the appropriate action?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Please don't take bot listings on UAA to be good examples of UAA reports. They're not even the same kind of thing. A bot report means "a human should look at this name and see if it violates policy". A human report means "This username violates policy and should be indefinitely blocked." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An other Uaa report

Please also note that a username which matches the name of a company or product isn't a violation unless the user is using the name to promote it. Ipodaddict1.sarah, who you reported as "Matches that of a product or company", is apparently a constructive user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought because of the different copyrights out on the "iPod" brand name, there would be an issue, if not, then I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Troplock (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's my opinion that correcting the users can help keep the number of "bad" reports (reports of usernames which are, in fact, okay) down. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try to enforce copyright or trademark law on Wikipedia, you should start by reading about what copyrights and trademarks are, including the large differences between them, and what laws apply to them. There's no US law or Wikipedia policy against labeling yourself an "iPod addict". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Hi. I replaced your block notice on an IP talk page because it contained no links. It looks like you're pretty new round here, so I warmly welcome you as a clearly useful contributor and recommend you check out WP:TWINKLE - it'll make your life tagging stuff enormously easier. No idea what kind of computer/browser you use, but if you're on a PC running IE, you might want to install Firefox first. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Twinkle does a good line in block notices - was that one from TW? --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the non-admin version of TWINKLE not include block notices in the list of warnings? NB the joke at the top of your talk page is frowned upon in policy, though I guess you already know that. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Gurchzilla (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Redfarmer, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Redfarmer (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for gross incivility and threats.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Woody (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given the sudden change in the actions of this account, I suspect it may be compromised. Woody (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not compromised, I have just lost my job, am I not allowed to be slightly fucked off? Unblock me.

Decline reason:

You can be fucked off if you want, just not on Wikipedia; it is not therapy. You haven't apologised for the comments you made, nor have you said you would stop making them so I see no reason to unblock. — Woody (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

ok, the comments were a mistake, which wont happen again, but what the hell gives him to revert my talkpage??

Decline reason:

I don't feel reassured that the extraordinary levels of incivility are going to stop. If you stopped acting quite so angrily, I would feel more inclined to unblock you. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

What exactly do I have to do then sam? Because the way I see it, I have done everything per above, and you come here telling me not to be so angry which is making me more angry because I can't be unblocked!

Decline reason:

Unhelpful attitude. Please go and be angry elsewhere. — Sandstein (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (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.