User talk:Mishae: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:27, 12 November 2024

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Mishae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like 4X4: Hummer, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted. thank you mishae for your contributions!:) THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16170 was submitted on Jul 18, 2016 22:52:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I thoroughly analyzed that my behavior was despicable toward the whole community. I'm planning on writing and edit articles (not their talkpages). I know that I also lied to many of you and it was a stupid decision by me to trick all of you. I will not repeat those mistakes (please see a list bellow of what I will do differently). I'm asking for a second time this wonderful community to let me join. I promise that I wont talk back to the admins and I will head the warnings. In fact, before I was blocked I learned when and when not to use WP:IAR, so you can see that I am improving. I also know that I shouldn't bother you with constant unblock requests, so that way a community can come to a consensus. I also would like to mention that while being blocked I have managed to edit many articles by archiving them. During that time of anonymous editing I did no harm to the project. That includes, I never edited a single article talkpage. I need an unblock for writing articles and not for edit count.--Mishae (talk) 3:57 am, 19 July 2016, Tuesday (1 month, 10 days ago) (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

WP:Block evasion is not allowed. What you showed us is that you have not been able to respect Wikipedia policies even after you were blocked. That gives me no reason to unblock you. How can I trust you that you will be respecting the policies when unblocked, if you can't respect them while blocked. I'm giving you a WP:standard offer. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (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.

Since somebody told me, I should write it in detail, here:

I was not myself when I started to be disruptive after unblock (I was in process of breaking up with my girlfriend, and I got stressed). I should have took another month off but it came so sudden (adding to it college and all). Due to this suddenness I was so angry that I started to racially insult other editors without thinking about the rules (which is not very common with me). As for my sockpuppet accusations, I admit my wrong here too and it was not nice of me to do it because it too was in violation of our policies.

All of the actions that I did above were wrong because they all were in gross violation of our rules and guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing and WP:NPA.

As for what I will do differently, I already moved one step. Back when I was first blocked in April, I promised @Writ Keeper: not to use WP:IAR and I kept my word. After this block will expire, I will only do constructive edits because after a year of a block I understood that such behavior was wrong, and if it will happen again, the ArbCom will be the next step. As for racial remarks, I will keep my mouth shut and will remain civil no matter what will happen. So, if admins will be generous to give me another chance, I will take 2 more steps, in that I will be civil, competent and not disruptive (actually that will be 3 steps).-Mishae (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If its OK with the community, may I ask for @Koavf: to intervene in this discussion since I know him for a long time, because he understands me?..--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishae: I have a suggestion (and take it from someone with an extensive block history): maybe you could try writing on simple: for a little while and then get a fresh perspective before coming back tot his edition? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, I'm really not sure what "...while being blocked I have managed to edit many articles by archiving them. During that time of anonymous editing I did no harm to the project" means. What do you mean by "archiving them"? And by "anonymous editing", are you saying you have been editing logged out and evading your block? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing! said Zebedee, see Special:Contributions/184.97.251.58. I'll hold off on hardblocking it while this discussion is ongoing. ‑ Iridescent 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha, I see, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Koavf: Thanks, but simple Wikipedia is too simple. Like, there is more stubs then full blown articles, and its almost impossible to make them as good as here because its simple. As for extensive block history, how did you managed to convince them to unblock you? Like, I need to assume that non of your blocks were probably as bad as mine, but still... Also, maybe its not polite of me to ask, but since we are such good friends here maybe I can have your Skype?--Mishae (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Boing! said Zebedee: No, I wasn't evading a block, in fact as my contributions go, I started doing it only after 6 months of being blocked and then I got bored because I want to write the articles too, and I can only do it with my account.--Mishae (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Editing logged out while your account is blocked *is* evading your block - it's the very definition of it! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Boing! said Zebedee: Didn't knew that after 6 months it will still be considered evasion, but lets compromise, shall we? Did I ever did a single harm to the project while doing it? No. And plus, how else will I prove that my behavior have changed? By waiting another 6 months after being blocked for WP:IDHT, even though I tried everything to convince people to unblock my account??? I don't want to wait another 6 months if my behavior is good.--Mishae (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The WP:Standard Offer suggests waiting at least six months and then requesting unblock, but there's no automatic expiry of block evasion after that time - you still need to actually make the request and not edit until it is accepted. I will say that the edit summary at this edit suggests that you were not trying to be deceptive, and I don't see any problems with the edits themselves, so I'd say those count as mitigation to some extent. Whoever reviews your request will hopefully consider all sides. (By the way, I'd urge you not to take the line that previous admin actions here have been unreasonable - you were a very difficult editor to deal with, and you repeatedly refused to listen to what you were being told.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Boing! said Zebedee: Done And yes, I admit I was difficult, but when I tried to convince other editors to unblock me when user Blackmane gave me a three step guide on how to appeal it, I was about to do it next day, but when I woke up, I realized my talkpage access was revoked per IDHT. Like, apparently I can't sleep, and today I woke up at 7:00 am, so that I can continue on convincing you guys, before my talkpage access will be revoked again. If the admins will be kind enough, after the unblock, will it be possible to restore my autopatroller rights? I was using it only for user talk pages when the new warning or welcome is posted. Right now I realized that one of the Vladimir Ponkin refs is dead, and I am in urge to archive it.--Mishae (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: "What you showed us is that you have not been able to respect Wikipedia policies even after you were blocked. That gives me no reason to unblock you."

Really? You can't trust me only because of this? Whoa, hold on, so what I said above didn't really matter? I wasn't editing talkpages while being blocked and showed many constructive edits. Even user @Koavf: said that 6 months is enough and I proved it. Yes, block evasion is not allowed, and I completely agree on it, but despite the evasion, I showed good faith, which I didn't got in return. :( Plus @Iridescent: said that he will wait on hard blocking me for evasion until the discussion will end. Is it still in process? If it is, then you just blocked me out of your will without consensus agreement. In other words, I wasn't notified of a discussion, therefore your block for evasion should be dismissed by consensus. You know @Vanjagenije:, I have tried to wait out 6 months without editing, but user Kudpung blocked me off the whim for WP:IDHT. If I can't show you my good editing while being unblocked then the only way for me to show it, is to do it while being blocked. If you would have been blocked for 6 months, waited patiently, and didn't got unblocked, what would you have done?--Mishae (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "6 months is enough" and "I have tried to wait out 6 months without editing". You were editing as soon as last month. Six months without editing means, well, six months without editing. Also, I don't understand what consensus you are talking about. I did not block you out of my will, as you were already blocked. I just declined your unblock request. You are free to make new request and wait for some other admin to review it. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'll wait, civilly.--Mishae (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vanjagenije: I have been to that road before... I tried multiple requests last time, and then I was blocked for WP:IDHT. By "6 months is enough", I was quoting user @Koavf: and by "I have tried to wait out 6 months without editing" I meant my first block, after which I waited 6 months and then was blocked for WP:IDHT. After that, I evaded it, because I seen no other option, because I already wasn't editing for 6 months! Block, decline block, no difference, you still did it at your own will, because if you would have seen my edits you would probably ignored the evasion, which in this case, you should. My evasion wasn't an act of vandalism, quite the contrary. If only Wikipedia would have allowed writing articles without an account there will be no reason for it, but because I want to write articles, I demand my account to be unblocked.--Mishae (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question

Procedural question to admins. Mishae was blocked for a month per the community discussion here. Mishae was subsequently unblocked by Writ Keeper, somewhat out of process as it was an unblock without community consent but that's by the by. However, that does bring up the question whether (1) the community imposed block is still in effect and (2) any unblock request should be considered on WP:AN. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note. The above is not a comment on the substance of the unblock request itself but a procedural question. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: the community discussion in question led to a one-month block, not an indef one, thus the "community sanction" has long since expired. That WK unblocked before the month was up may have been procedurally questionable but that's irrelevant now. However, that being said, I personally think that the extent of the block log would amply justify a community discussion, even if procedurally it doesn't strictly require it. Make of that what you will.☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less what I figured. Cheers. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 2

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).

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

Request reason:

I thoroughly analyzed that my behavior was despicable toward the whole community. I'm planning on writing and edit articles (not their talkpages). I know that I also lied to many of you and it was a stupid decision by me to trick all of you. I will not repeat those mistakes (please see a list bellow of what I will do differently). I'm asking for a second time this wonderful community to let me join. I promise that I wont talk back to the admins and I will head the warnings. In fact, before I was blocked I learned when and when not to use WP:IAR, so you can see that I am improving. I also know that I shouldn't bother you with constant unblock requests, so that way a community can come to a consensus. I also would like to mention that while being blocked I have managed to edit many articles by archiving them. During that time of anonymous editing I did no harm to the project. That includes, I never edited a single article talkpage. I need an unblock for writing articles and not for edit count.--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC) In order to differ from my previous try, I will add that I heartily acknowledge block evasion, and am promising not to do that again either. If the community still decides not to unblock my account and rather force me to wait 6 months, I will follow that without evading (although I already did so after the 1st block, which user Koavf said was enough to prove my competence).--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having spent a considerable time reading the comments on this page and looking at other history, including your extensive block log, I am persuaded that giving you the option of requesting an unblock request after you have refrained from editing for six months was as generous an offer as you could reasonably expect. Since you were evading your block at least as recently as 18 July 2016, that means that you can request an unblock any time from 18 January 2017, if there has been no other block evasion that I don't know about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2016 (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.

Since somebody told me, I should write it in detail, here:

I was not myself when I started to be disruptive after unblock (I was in process of breaking up with my girlfriend, and I got stressed). I should have took another month off but it came so sudden (adding to it college and all). Due to this suddenness I was so angry that I started to racially insult other editors without thinking about the rules (which is not very common with me). As for my sockpuppet accusations, I admit my wrong here too and it was not nice of me to do it because it too was in violation of our policies.

All of the actions that I did above were wrong because they all were in gross violation of our rules and guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing and WP:NPA.

As for what I will do differently, I already moved one step. Back when I was first blocked in April, I promised @Writ Keeper: not to use WP:IAR and I kept my word. After this block will expire, I will only do constructive edits because after a year of a block I understood that such behavior was wrong, and if it will happen again, the ArbCom will be the next step. As for racial remarks, I will keep my mouth shut and will remain civil no matter what will happen. So, if admins will be generous to give me another chance, I will take 2 more steps, in that I will be civil, competent and not disruptive (actually that will be 3 steps).--Mishae (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for my block evasion, while I see that people can't trust me because of that (as I can see by above decline), I thought that constructive edits will value more in my case then block evasion (alas, I was wrong). I do however urge the community to reconsider their decision about keeping me blocked. I spent more then a year being blocked, and while I did came and edit some articles a month prior to an unblock request, I did it out of my competence prove.--Mishae (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I've been pinged, but I don't have much to say. I went out on a limb the last time I unblocked you, and I'm not going to do it again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise; you've pinged me, but I'm not entirely sure why. To assess an unblock request is a time-consuming task at the best of times; if someone does want to assess your contributions and decide you're worthy of yet another second chance I won't stop them, but I can only speak for myself and my time is better served in places other than considering whether someone who makes comments like Wikipedia is hijacked by kikes is someone we want back on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: People overreact, and yes, my comment was quite extreme, but I am surprised that people don't believe that editor's behavior can change, considering that it was a year since. All I want is to write more articles and not to insult or argue with you all. And if I promise I wont overreact, I wont overreact. I think that a second chance after a long block worth a try. People should look not at what I did or said in the past, but what I did in the past couple months.--Mishae (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: So, how long is this "time consuming process"? Also, if I get denied an unblock request does it means that the process will be halted or I would need to appeal again and then it will resume? And please, do not miss quote me as you did here: Wikipedia is hijacked by kikes. My initial comment was As another user said on Russian Wikipedia and I literally translated what he said. Am I not allowed to translate someone's comments? But perhaps you probably wont be able to comment on the second sentence, so I probably should ping @Vanjagenije: if its OK?--Mishae (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I probably shouldn't have pinged any of you, but keeping me blocked wont prevent anything except for stirring a kind of abuse of blocking privileges (if such policy exists). Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to accuse me of selective misquotation, you probably shouldn't try to rebut it with a selective misquotation. Your exact words were Somebody on the Russian Wikipedia have said that Wikipedia is hijacked by kikes, and you know what, while I at first was reluctant to agree with that blocked user here I came to realization that he is probably right. A black person or a Jew is treated as a Saint here, while a disabled individual is being treated like a piece of shit., immediately followed by Removed BS by a fascist Jew (in an argument about whether beetles are covered by WikiProject Insects, ffs).

The "time consuming process" would probably be around three or four hours given the history which needs to be examined; you need to write something which will convince whichever admin is patrolling this page that the potential benefits of your return makes it worth their investing that kind of time researching your contribution and interaction history. (And no, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of your history the reviewing admin examines.) Regarding "if I get denied an unblock request does it means that the process will be halted or I would need to appeal again and then it will resume?", as long as you still see yourself listed at Category:Requests for unblock it means your appeal is still live—if a request is explicitly declined, you'll be removed from the category and need to file a fresh request. ‑ Iridescent 09:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Thanks for explanations. As I said before, all the racism thing was out of frustration and had nothing to do with you in person or user Kingofaces43, or anyone. I should have took a break back then, and will do it if I will have another frustrating day. Either way, my talk page is clean from prejudices, so that should convince a community that I learned a thing or two about that. Also I am aware of the consequences if I will return to my old behavior and therefore I am willing to comply with any policy to a grave. As I stated before, I need an unblock for editing articles and patrolling. Like, Wikipedia is my home too. And I have a lot to contribute to this project, the articles need to be archived, expanded, and written upon, and by keeping me blocked you wont get a more complete and accurate encyclopedia. If I want to return, and I clearly mentioned numerous of times that there is no threat from me if I will get unblocked, shouldn't community listen?--Mishae (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, @JamesBWatson:. I evaded it due to competence prove, though. As for "I am persuaded that giving you the option of requesting an unblock request after you have refrained from editing for six months was as generous an offer as you could reasonably expect." - I refrained from editing for 6 months before Kudpung blocked me for WP:IDHT which in my opinion was just another excuse on not unblocking me. :(--Mishae (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you know so little about Kudpung that you think he goes round looking for "excuses" for not unblocking disruptive editors, then you really don't know much about him. You may also like to consider whether such unsubstantiated accusations against other editors have contributed to your unblock requests being declined in the past, and whether making more such accusations is likely to help your cause. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I knew Kudpung since the day I started editing here (i.e. roughly 2014). Maybe I don't know him as much as you do, and that's fair. I wasn't disruptive when I was trying to get the point, or as of now it is consider disruptive to ping other editors and ask for clarifications? And no, I don't accuse anyone just voicing my opinion and stating a fact. Because really folks, what does WP:IDHT accusation had to do with my second block? Am I not allowed to convince editors into unblocking me?--Mishae (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that someone has falsely claimed to have taken action for a stated reason when in fact that is just an excuse, and you don't think you have accused him of anything? The more I read of the endless nonsense you post the less of a case I think there is for unblocking you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Fine, I will shut up, but do read this comment and explain to me why I was blocked after 6 months of not editing a thing! I'm not talking nonsense. Being confused and asking for clarification that's what I do now. The only thing I needed to do was to convince admins into my unblock. My main feeling was, that as long as I will explain my unblock in a civil manner I will get unblocked. Instead, I was reblocked per WP:IDHT which in my opinion came out of nowhere. Here is that comment: Nobody told me that I will be reblocked just because somebody would be annoyed by my unblock requests. I did nothing (at least I don't see it) to deserve a reblock, and I do nothing now to get a 3rd block! And when I was about to ask Kudpung about what point I failed to get, I was already blocked. If Kudpung would have allowed me to have an excess to this talkpage, maybe I would have gotten the point, but he wanted me blocked. Maybe we just didn't understood each other? It's possible. But there was no reason for a second block, just a clarification and that's it. When people talk in riddles (in this case Kudpung) of course anybody would fail to get the point. Saying stuff like "Another admin might well have pulled the plug already. Now please take the hint.", meant to me as a "ha-ha-ha, we wont unblock you, therefore scram!" What was "the hint"? And I was blocked after I posted completely innocent comment: "So what you are saying that the more I ping you, the more chances I wont be unblocked because it is disruptive? Another question Kudpung, should I wait until the discussion is done, or should I put another unblock request, or I just continue discussion here?" I don't see any violation here, do you? Or are you implying that it wasn't Kudpung who removed my talkpage access and it was his dog??? Like really, I am being serious. So instead of getting this: "This is a community-placed block and will require a communty discussion to unblock you. That will not happen any time soon." - which I did, I also got blocked for no reason. He could have posted this comment without blocking me, and explaining something like "Yes, constant pinging is disruptive and therefore, please stop." And I would have, I was civil and still am. And if it makes you and Kudpung feel better I apologize if I did accused someone. I promise that if I will get clarification about the above I will look on the matter differently.--Mishae (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ask me to explain the reason for a block, but I see no point in explaining once again what has already been explained to you. You didn't understand what was being said to you before, and I see no reason to think you are likely to understand if the same explanation is given to you again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK, @JamesBWatson: if you will give this explanation in step-by-step I will get it. So far I am getting some points straight

1. I shouldn't ask why I was blocked by Kudpung because that will be in violation of WP:IDHT. 2. I should not comment on my talkpage till the above mentioned date from you.--Mishae (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be absolutely honest, I don't see why my name even keeps cropping up here. Looking over the block log I seem to have been just one of many blocking for the same reasons. We can't all have been wrong. Probably, the standard offer still stands from the last blocking admin, but he will need to be consulted, possibly along with all the others. No need to ask me again though because at the moment I'm tied up with other stuff and I'll concur with any decisions made by any of the other admins involved here.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now the mind-boggling personal attacks, false accusations, and trumped-up false reasoning, excuses, and lies have already started up. It simply seems that this user is incapable of interacting on Wikipedia without resorting to this behavior. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The personal attacks are coming from you Softlavender. I'm capable of interacting on this project. At least I don't go and accuse people of lying like you did. I'm personally offended by this.--Mishae (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To be absolutely honest, I don't see why my name even keeps cropping up here. Looking over the sago of your block log it appears to have started years before I got involved and I seem to have been just one of many blocking you for the same reasons. We can't all have been wrong. Probably, the standard offer still stands from the last blocking admin, but he will need to be consulted, possibly along with all the others. No need to ask me again though because at the moment I'm tied up with other stuff and I'll concur with any decisions made by any of the other admins involved here. I will say his though: I can't see the diatribe above being very conducive to anyone voting to unblock you any time soon, and it might even be time to take away your talk page access again for a while.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Kudpung I don't see the reason why would anyone remove talkpage access simply because a person tries to convince other admins to unblock them (that's the reason why your name continues cropping here). As far as I remember I was blocked for personal attacks and WP:CIR then after 6 months of waiting I appealed and got blocked again from you per WP:IDHT even though I tried to convince other admins to unblock me. The sole purpose for talkpage access is to convince other admins to unblock a specific editor and to discuss their conduct. I think I have a right to question your actions if I don't understand something. It never meant to be an accusation, please don't take it the wrong way.--Mishae (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constant unblock requests is actually one of the most reasons why TPA is revoked, because it smacks of "asking the other parent". Guy (Help!) 14:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, that explains. Will wait quietly till next year. :) Sorry @Kudpung: Guy explained me the reason, will keep this page clean and block request free until next year. Thank you for not removing my TPA again. :)--Mishae (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to apologize for any personal attacks, accusations, and excuses, to Kudpung and @Softlavender: due to my inability of reading "between the lines". If anyone of you would have explained it the same way as Guy did, I wont even started that debacle. :)--Mishae (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q1 2020

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2020, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation

VG Project Main pages
- Main project – talk
- Project category – talk
- Portal – talk
VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
- Reference library – talk
- Newsletter – talk
- Video game images – talk

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

Nomination of Vladimir Ivanov (model) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vladimir Ivanov (model) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ivanov (model) 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.

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Thomas James Hurst

The article Thomas James Hurst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO, only source is a brief news blog about the closure of his church, not really WP:SIGCOV of him

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. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]