User talk:23prootie: Difference between revisions

Archives
User talk:23prootie/Archive 1 User talk:23prootie/Archive 2 User talk:23prootie/Archive 3 User talk:23prootie/Archive 4 User talk:23prootie/Archive Collection

23prootie (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello! Your submission of Benham Plateau at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! –Dream out loud (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on files sizes in the article's history, you expanded the article's prose from 1245 B (209 words) to 4307 B (714 words). This was checked using this script. In order to qualify for DYK, you must expand the article by at least 5x. Keep in mind, this does not include the addition of images or references. See WP:DYK#DYK rules. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 23prootie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philippines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. JL 09 _^q?c 14:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

JL 09 _^q?c has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello. Philippines has been protected by a protecting admin upon request and due to edit war. He receommended here to solve any dispute on the page, but that is only available to admins. Sky Harbor said here on the other hand, to list down and discuss possible disputes on Philippines' talk page which caused edit war. Cheers!--JL 09 _^q?c 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I removed the template {{Countries and territories of Oceania}}. I demand a reasonf rom you why you put this to the page, in fact that Philippines is not on Oceania so to speak.--JL 09 _^q?c 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message on your actual talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:23prootie/Kris_Allen and User:23prootie/Adam_Lambert

Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored actual talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it already. Thnks anywy.----ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜑᜎᜒᜃ ᜂᜐᜉ᜔ ᜆᜌᜓ) 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what characterset your new sig is in, but it shows up as boxes on my computer—and being a linguist, I have more charactersets than the average editor probably does. Can you think of a way to improve your signature for accessibility? (For example, mine uses <b class="Unicode"> around the uncommon IPA characters, which I think helps for people with older computers/browsers.) People at the village pump - technical may be able to help. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's still showing up as boxes for me. What character set does your signature use? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baybayin.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜑᜎᜒᜃ ᜂᜐᜉ᜔ ᜆᜌᜓ) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as boxen for me too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend leaving a message at WP:VP/T to ask if anyone knows a way to get your sig to be accessible to people who don't have the fonts installed, since (unlike IPA fonts, CJK character sets, etc.) I imagine very few editors have ancient Tagalog unicode script installed. If there's no way to do it, you should at least include an internal link to Baybayin#External links so that people can figure out how to download the fonts. (for instance,

ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜑᜎᜒᜃ ᜂᜐᜉ᜔ ᜆᜌᜓ) ^{Baybayin script}

). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks

--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 21:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change it to "External links" then so it goes to the right place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 21:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Balangay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen McNamara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Tagalog language. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I removed the Baybayin before but you insisted to insert it. Baybayin is not used in Tagalog language, and please, Baybayin is a dead alphabet. Only include on the infobox if majority of Tagalog speakers still use it. Thanks.

Also consider changing your sig, it's too long and sometimes create boxes into other browsers--JL 09 _^q?c 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baybayin is NOT a dead writing system. It's people like you that allws it to be that way.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 18:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Baybayin is no longer in use. The next time you'll do this, I'll report you. Thanks.--JL 09 _^q?c 03:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the template says that native name must be the native name of the language, inclusion of the Baybayin script does not only imply redundancy of the subject, but also violates the usage of the template:

|nativename = native name of the language

Documentation for the native name line does not provoke or give the possibility of inserting the script equivalent of the native name. Please adhere with the template's usage. You didn't even know if Tagalog language is semi-equivalent to wikang Tagalog when written in Baybayin; maybe it is not called wika the way we call it today. Thanks.--JL 09 _^q?c 04:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (���ᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Commonwealth of the Philippines‎. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've done this before at least once, and were reverted, I'm giving you a formal warning. PLease propose a move next time, and wait for a consensus to move the page before doing so. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop redirecting the Commonwealth of the Philippines article without discussing it first. We have created a section on the appropriate talk page if you would like to discuss the move, and get consensus to support the move. Otherwise, your efforts will continue to be reverted. I look forward to reading your reasoning, and thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 23prootie. You have new messages at JL 09's talk page.
Message added 07:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JL 09 _^q?c 07:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 23prootie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JL 09 _^q?c 11:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Commonwealth of the Philippines, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --JL 09 _^q?c 12:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you move a page maliciously, as you did to Commonwealth of the Philippines, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The name you insist is the alternative form of the name. Please familiarize, if you haven't do so, with the history of the Philippines written by outstanding Filipino historians. --JL 09 _^q?c 12:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Commonwealth of the Philippines, you will be blocked from editing. Please do not blank information on this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you move a page maliciously, as you did to Commonwealth of the Philippines, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of capitals of East Asia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article includes links of capital, which can be treated as a suppository directory of governors of East Asian capitals. Furthermore, this article is orphaned and supposed list of capitals can be replaced by navigable templates such as {{Capitals in Asia}}

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. JL 09 _^q?c 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if someone adds a "citation needed" tag to an article, it should not be reverted with the edit summary "revert vandalism" as you've done here. This page has a lot of good information as to what constitutes vandalism, and what does not. It unfortunately looks like you're heading towards an edit war on this article; without taking sides, I suggest you take it to the talk page to try to reach an agreement with the other editor, or to engage in the various methods of WP:Dispute resolution in order to help diffuse the situation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Francisco M. Carreón at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Move warring after final warning. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2009 (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).

23prootie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I do know that I should apologize to the inconvenience I did to some users and I do, I feel that this block is unwarranted because I was only following the BRD policy and was able to state my side on Talk:Philippine Commonwealth. The block is detrimental to resolving the dispute because not all options to do so was used; just because I had an opposing opinion, I was tagged me in the noticeboard without explaining thoroughly in my talk page why my edit was irrelevant. On a side note, I thought User:JL 09's edits were hostile because he once tried to sabotage the DYK for balangay.

Decline reason:

The WP:BRD flowchart instructs you to use the talk page after the first revert; it certainly is not a licence to move-war.  Sandstein  15:24, 3 October 2009 (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).

23prootie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel that the block is too punitive because I am unaware (until now) of the policy on move-wars. Previously, I thought that moving pages without consensus was okay since RightCowLeftCoast had previously done so in that same article. I believe, at that time, that I had given enough reason in Talk:Philippine Commonwealth so I thought it was okay to move it back to the form I was siding on. Again, I apologize for my ignorance and wish that you may reconsider.

Decline reason:

Escalating blocks is generally how we treat repeated edit warring. You've been blocked at least a half dozen times for uncooperative behavior; you don't seem to have gotten the message, so the encyclopedia will get to spend the next month without your disruptive activities. Next time will likely be much longer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:28, 3 October 2009 (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).

23prootie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

With my edits I tend to ignore the rules if I feel that they would be beneficial in those articles. I had no intention of disrupting the editing process nor destroy articles. The only thing that I was doing was being bold.This can be seen in my edits in that article (back in February 2007), all I want is that article to be better in providing information so please reconsider and understand my stance.

Decline reason:

Edit-warring is always disruptive, which is why there is a rule against it. This is your seventh block for edit-warring. After the first six blocks, you certainly knew that you would be blocked if you chose to edit-war. You chose to edit-war knowing that, which means you made an informed choice to be blocked. I respect that choice, and will honor it completely by allowing you to keep the block you requested by edit-warring. In order to help you make informed choices in the future, I should warn you that you have reached the point where your next block for edit-warring may well be permanent, so you should only choose to edit-war in the future if it is so important that it is worth the price of never editing Wikipedia again. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:03, 3 October 2009 (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).

23prootie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This user is politely requesting a second chance.

Decline reason:

I'm afraid that you are well past your sixth chance, and the requests above seem to be indicating you still don't have a good feel for why you are blocked. I would encourage you to continue to read about our editing policies and watch how others handle disputes until your block expires. Kuru ^talk 12:37, 5 October 2009 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

23prootie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Could you please reconsider my second chance , I know I have been a handful and I am sorry. I get worked up in a few topics but I am still able to give well-meaning contributions like the ones I do in DYK, so I believe a topic ban would be more appropriate. I truly apologize for my actions so please be understanding. If you cannot consider my request to be unblocked, then could you at least shorten it, a 3-month long block is far too long...

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Could you please reconsider my [[:Template:Second chance|second chance]] [[Image:shocked-tpvgames.gif]] , I know I have been a handful and I am sorry. I get worked up in a few topics but I am still able to give well-meaning [[User talk:23prootie/Archive Collection|contributions]] like the ones I do in [[WP:DYK|DYK]], so I believe a topic ban would be more appropriate. I truly apologize for my actions so please be understanding. If you cannot consider my request to be unblocked, then could you at least shorten it, a 3-month long block is far too long... |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Could you please reconsider my [[:Template:Second chance|second chance]] [[Image:shocked-tpvgames.gif]] , I know I have been a handful and I am sorry. I get worked up in a few topics but I am still able to give well-meaning [[User talk:23prootie/Archive Collection|contributions]] like the ones I do in [[WP:DYK|DYK]], so I believe a topic ban would be more appropriate. I truly apologize for my actions so please be understanding. If you cannot consider my request to be unblocked, then could you at least shorten it, a 3-month long block is far too long... |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Could you please reconsider my [[:Template:Second chance|second chance]] [[Image:shocked-tpvgames.gif]] , I know I have been a handful and I am sorry. I get worked up in a few topics but I am still able to give well-meaning [[User talk:23prootie/Archive Collection|contributions]] like the ones I do in [[WP:DYK|DYK]], so I believe a topic ban would be more appropriate. I truly apologize for my actions so please be understanding. If you cannot consider my request to be unblocked, then could you at least shorten it, a 3-month long block is far too long... |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You were only blocked for four weeks; escalated from your previous two week edit warring block. As you've chosen to continue to evade this block declaring "IAR", the block was expanded to three months. I would encourage any other reviewers to read the active ANI postings here. Kuru ^talk 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I was trying to keep the List of Suzuka Circuit fatal accidents from becoming rejected (and probably did more, sorry). So I did what I had to do. I know my way was unorthodox but I didn't want the effort of Donnie Park to go to waste. It may be unlawfur but is it wrong. I didn't do that to attack any users, vandalise, disrupt, or rant. I felt that my block was getting in the way and I ignored it, so please don't be offended.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 14:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Balangay, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francisco Carreón, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]