User talk:User340

Welcome!

Hello, User340, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tutelary (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm The Last Arietta. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueCrypt with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

If you manage to show some conduct that the afd was done improperly (which I believe that it was not), you can take it directly to Deletion review. It is not afd 2. You can't argue for deletion of the article there, but if there was something that was not proposed or discussed, let's say off wiki canvassing for example, that would be weighed in with the result. But I don't advise you to do it, considering that you don't have a good understanding of notability, and whether an article should be deleted or not.Tutelary (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the discussion as there wasn't a snowball chance in hell that the article would have been deleted. If you take it to Deletion review the original closing decision will be endorsed. I suggest you {User340) read some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to get a better understanding, particularly the Content Standards and Notability sections. Cheers! JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if taken to deletion review, the likely result will be endorse. I'm just telling the user what he/she's options are, even if it is peculiar their first edits were the deletion of an article. Though do note that the result at Deletion Review is final. Tutelary (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning!

User340, if you continue gaming the system and bludgeoning the process, you may be blocked from editing. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:User340_and_TrueCrypt Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I've blocked your account indefinitely for edit-warring to repeatedly revert a legitimate AfD close. You can be unblocked once you agree to stop editing disruptively and take the close to Deletion Review if you believe there was an error made in the close.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:59, 17 July 2014 (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).

User340 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Quote any reason listed at Wikipedia:Speedy_keep which allowed speedy keep in this case. Why do you suppress a legitimate discussion so fast? Why don't you let me respond? User340 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the reason for the block. You will not be unblocked unless you agree to stop edit warring. Chillum 18:32, 17 July 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).

User340 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It does address the reason. If there was no valid reason for speedy keep, I am not guilty in this case. Quote any reason listed at Wikipedia:Speedy_keep which allowed speedy keep in this case. Why do you suppress a legitimate discussion so fast? Why don't you let me respond? User340 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 17 July 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.

Where in Wikipedia:Edit warring does it say that being right, or thinking you are right lets you revert people over and over? You are not being blocked because you wanted the article deleted, you are being blocked for edit warring over a closure you did not agree with. If you cannot make a simple promise to not edit war then it is very unlikely that any admin will unblock you. Chillum 18:48, 17 July 2014 (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).

User340 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am still waiting for a valid reason for speedy keep. It seems there was none and someone removed the discussion against the rules. Therefore, I am not guilty in this case as it was legitimate to restore the discussion. User340 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As has already been stated, you were edit warring over an AfD closure, period. You don't get to ignore rules just because you think you are "right." As has already been mentioned, deletion review is the venue for contesting AfD results. If you continue to make unblock requests that don't address the reason for your block, your talk page access will be revoked. I also suspect that there may be some block evasion afoot here.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 17 July 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).

User340 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone wanted to remove the discussion from the attention of the public as fast as possible. Why? I am still waiting for a valid reason for speedy keep. It seems there was none and someone removed the discussion against the rules. Therefore, I am not guilty in this case as it was legitimate to restore the discussion. User340 (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Codename Lisa has already provided said valid reason for the speedy keep: the nomination was viewed as disruptive, which is reason #2 under WP:SK. You were advised that if you wanted to appeal the close, you needed to go to WP:DRV. Thus, your AfD nomination because doubly disruptive, and the block of your account was necessary to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 17 July 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.

Whether you agree with it or not, the AfD has been closed, and you may not reopen it. You may appeal to have it reopened, but that would be through deletion review, not through undoing the close. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not openly admitting that I'm supporting Ponyo but I think if he is directed to the correct place, since he is new to Wikipedia (Welcomed 3 days ago), he should be unblocked, if he completely understands his mistake and is willing to go through deletion review. (Rovinemessage) 18:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what everyone is suggesting is if you say sorry and agree to stop edit warring you should be unblocked. (Rovinemessage) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that the very first edit by this user was to manually nominate on article for AfD. I don't think this is a new user. Regardless the blocking admin has stated that if this user agrees not to edit disruptively then the block can be lifted. I agree, however this has not happened yet. Chillum 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. One of the charges that I brought up against this user in ANI was gaming the system. Suppose this deletion does not match the criteria for speedy keep; it is still an unanimous discussion that can be closed with WP:SNOW. So, at most, User340 should have dropped a comment in JayJay's talk page requesting change of speedy keep to keep {{snow}}. What User340 did is definitely gaming the system. Nevertheless, it appears 8 people are of the opinion that the discussion should be closed per speedy keep, criterion #2: The nomination was unquestionably disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note As this account has proven to be a sock of Truecrypt-end I am obviously revoking my offer to unblock at any point.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'd just added to my decline...you beat me to it by a few seconds. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat unblock requests

Please note that "If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking".

You may want to change your current unblock request to say something simple like "I promise not to edit war or edit disruptively if I am unblocked" rather than just repeat the same arguments over and over. You will not get a different result by insisting you were not guilty of edit warring because you think you were right.

Demanding that an AfD closure is justified is not a valid unblock request. Even if the admin was wrong and you were right your edit warring was the reason for your block.

Please do not make repeated invalid unblock requests or you may lose your talk page editing priviledges. Chillum 19:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your talk page editing abilities since you are repeatedly making the exact same invalid unblock request. Please do not evade this block by coming back as another account, your behavior will make you easy to spot.

I have left your final unblock request to be reviewed by yet another administrator. Chillum 19:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I see why his unblock requests gets denied! (Rovinemessage) 21:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]