User talk:Vanished user wrteugweyr
Community ban
[edit]After a discussion, you have been blocked indefinitely, banned because you have exhausted the community's patience. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request
[edit]
Vanished user wrteugweyr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
okay. here's the thing. this account has been blocked for about two years. two years ago i created sockpuppets and eventually got blocked indefinitely. that was two years ago. here are two things that i think i understand correctly about wikipedia. (1) blocks are preventive and not punitive. (2) requesting the right to vanish only applies to accounts in good standing. i want to vanish. i want to have no part of the wikipedia project. to do that, my account needs to be unblocked. i feel an unblock is appropriate because i haven't done anything wrong in two years. leaving me blocked would be punishment instead of simply being preventive. there is no threat of me continuing to do anything wrong. i just want to go away. so, after two years away, i just request to be unblocked and to have this account (and it'd be really nice if the sockpuppet accounts, too) could all just be done away with. don't get me wrong. leave the sockpuppet accounts (user:hytorium, user:duckdid, and user:hosfant) blocked forever, but just allow me to go away. i think that's fair under the wikipedia rules. thanks in advance. Handface (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked not only for sockery, but also for personal attacks like that, which indicates that you're unable to keep yourself cool. Probaly my decision would have been much different, hadn't you evaded you ban just today, with 70.251.111.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:22, 5 July 2008 (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.
Vanished user wrteugweyr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i removed all off the other comments that user:MaxSem added back. now, here's what i have to say. first of all, i read the rules, and it's inappropriate to add comments back to my talk page that i have removed. so, please don't do that. secondly, the claim that i was trying to evade my block yesterday is really quite lame. obviously, im just trying to disappear. im not editing articles. im not being malicious. i just didn't sign in. i didn't even know if i remembered my password. this is exactly why i left wikipedia. people ask me to follow the rules, but in your last edit yoou broke two rules. you failed to assume good faith and you added comments back to my page. i dont want a part of any of this. i just want it to all go away. i would also like to point out that yesterday when i asked to be removed under an ip address, user:Gwernol also violated rules by re-posting warnings on my talk page and by not assuming good faith. i dont want to point fingers for these violations, although i guess i sort of just did, but i dont want to harass these people or see these people warned for these violations. i don't. i just want to go away. i dont think you understand how absurd it is from my perspective that two years after the fact, i ask to just be left alone, and not only is it not possible, but people break the rules in the process of telling me im a rule breaker. i have to point out also that your unblock reason doesn't address the underlying issue. blocks are not punitive. they're preventive. bringing up the fact that i engaged in a personal attack two years ago has nothing to do with anything. im keeping my cool. im not vandalizing. im just asking to leave. claiming that i vandalized yesterday or that i havent kept my cool just further slurs my account. now, go back and look at the edits i made yesterday with the ip address. i wasn't vandalizing. i was just trying to go away. please, please, please, follow your own rules and allow this to come to a conclusion. (ps: note that if denied again, i wont add the template back any time soon so as not to cause any disruption. i'll just wait six months or so ago and appeal again. however, i would hope that it does not come to that)Handface (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request is too long and incoherent for me to evaluate; it does not seem to address the reason for your block. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. — Sandstein 13:34, 5 July 2008 (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.
this is exactly why i hate wikipedia. i want to leave it, but like i said, im not going to be disruptive. ill just wait a few more months and see if people are willing to be a little more reasonable. i really can't believe im getting these kind of decline comments though. the basic thrust of your decline is that (1) my comment was too long, and (2) i didn't address the reason for my block. well, i didn't realize there was a length requirement for a unblock request. i was trying to be as thorough as possible. yet, in my effort to be thorough, inexpicably, ive been accused of not addressing the reason for my block.
in reality, ive been quite clear. i was blocked two years ago for sockpuppets and disruption. i havent done anything in two years. i dont want to be disruptive. i dont want to create sockpuppets. i just want to delete my account. ive read the rules, and the rules say that my block should be lifted.
ill never understand this. in trying to follow the rules these past few days in trying to get unblocked, ive been repeatedly accused of violating the rules. yet, i haven';t been doing things wrong. on the other hand, two of the other people who have been dealing with this have committed policy violations, yet no one cares. it's a double standard. it's wrong.
whatever. ill try again in a few months. again, hopefully 2.5 years away will be enough time for people to be reasonable about this.
(ps: as a side note, it seems pretty obvious to me that if th request is "too long and incoherent for [you] to evaluate", your own words, then you should not have evaluated it.)
Unreferenced BLPs
[edit]
Hello Handface! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 214 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Gary Heavin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Amber Nichole Miller has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced BLP. No real claim to notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources found.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Michig (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The article Rachelle Leah has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't meet notability
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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nswix (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Rachelle Leah for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Leah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Nswix (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Jacobson v. United States
[edit]Jacobson v. United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)