Welcome!
Hello, Acoma Magic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
{{unblock | reason=I'm not an expert regarding these things, but since this account is connected to this IP address, I don't think anybody else can use this IP address and perform disruptive editing. So can you unblock me and only block again if I disruptively edit Wikipedia? I'm editing Wikipedia constructively, as can be seen from my edits, though I've forgotten to log in most of the time. [[User:Acoma Magic|Acoma Magic]] ([[User talk:Acoma Magic#top|talk]]) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{
unblock-auto}}
and fill it out with the information that appears when you try and edit. —
Jeremy
v^_^v
Bori!
04:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You are still able to view pages, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 76.73.0.0/17 has been blocked (disabled) by Zzuuzz for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer from your ISP who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. If this is the case, please request to be unblocked using the {{ unblock}} template, or request administrator attention using {{ admin!}} and indicate you are caught by an open proxy block. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). In some cases, this can be remedied by logging into the secure server. For more information, see the Wikiproject on Open Proxies and Wikipedia:Open proxies. (Sandbox test edit)
This block has been set to expire: 22:55, 10 May 2014. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information. }}
I have temperally nulled the templates. To reactivate, just remove 'tl|' from them. Mdann52 ( talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you explore the utility of the "Show preview" button? It saves the watchlist milage. Regards Tide rolls 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have initiated a new section on Talk:Jimmy Wales for your reference. Please go here. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
hopiakuta Please d o sign your communiqué . ~~ Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persin a. 00:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I am so very sorry for the insult.
hopiakuta Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persin a. 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Spelling & more message. Thank You.
hopiakuta Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persin a. 06:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I was only trying to do the right thing. — Ched : ? 04:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am reverting your last edit at Jason Russell under the BLP exemption, and per your suggestion I am pursuing resolution at N/BLP. Just so you know, consensus (which doesn't exist in this case anyway) does not provide cover for BLP violations. If you put that material back before a decision is reached at the BLP Noticeboard, the next stop will be AN/I. Of course, I'm not telling you what to do - merely informing you in advance of my intentions. Stand by for a link to the N/BLP discussion, which should be available in the next 20 minutes or so. Belchfire- TALK 06:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Here you go, make your case. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jason_Russell Belchfire- TALK 06:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The Minor barnstar | |
Noticed you removed a space between a period and a reference; I admire your nitpickyness! — JmaJeremy• Ƭalk• Cont 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
I'm not crazy about it, but in the interest of world peace, I'll accept it so we can move on to more important things. Belchfire- TALK 20:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jimmy Wales#Rfc: Links to user:Jimbo Wales. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do not contribute to closed discussions. Your actions are disruptive. Please stop. If you have further concerns regarding this source, or any source, feel free to start a new discussion at RS/N about sourcing. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the user page maintenance. You're pretty speedy. Belchfire- TALK 05:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There are too many troublemakers throwing up walls of indents on the talk page. Can you put your proposals here and we can work on them together? After we finish we can submit one for the entire talk page.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
03:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Swarm
X
06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Acoma Magic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The diffs are higher up for reference. In the "participating" diff, I reverted somebody's change to the original version, in part because of the rubbish reason "better version" and the content had already been edited by several people and was different to my original change but received support to stay by others. In the "edit war" diff, I reverted a change that didn't even go to the original version but to something else. I reverted that edit and the next one because it was introducing a change that had several problems with it and consensus was on him to get support for his version over the previous one that had support by about 6 people (judging by comments on talk page and in the edits). Acoma Magic ( talk) 13:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see nothing unreasonable about this block. You introduced new wording to a controversial article, then made three reverts to retain your material. While not a a technical 3RR violation, this was certainly disruptive edit warring. You've been clearly warned about this several times over the last few days relating to that very article. Take a break, read over WP:BRD and WP:EW. Kuru (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (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.
Two thoughts for you, that I doubt interest anyone else at Talk:Tom Cruise:
What you're doing is petty. You need to stop. Nowhere on Wikipedia do we decrease the percentages due to the margin of error nor change language. If you want to mention the margin, fine, but don't change what the source said. Thank you. Teammm T M 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Since you hate templates, you made a bold edit, it was changed, you reverted 1, undone again, you reverted 2, undone again, and you reverted a third time. Note, the only reason I haven't blocked you is because you've edited your talk page since then and not reverted again. Had I not seen you were online, you'd be blocked. Also note, I only called the other editors reverting "undo" to keep the distinction between yours and their edits clear. Edit warring will not be tolerated.--v/r - T P 15:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. – MrX 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Acoma Magic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The blocking admin said he blocked me for this: [1] He said that is a revert, I disagree so I'm doing this unblock request. Acoma Magic ( talk) 16:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If that one edit were the sole conduct of yours that would support an edit-warring block, I'd be putting this on hold to talk to the blocking admin. It's not whether the material was sourced here that counts; it's the fact that, as you noted, it refers to someone who is not in the image and does not seem relevant to the image itself. I will share this opinion with the blocking admin. However ... that was not the only such edit you made. A check of the page history shows what is undeniably an edit war between you and another editor over how to characterize the poll results in a source. I do not know at this point if the other editor was also blocked; we are not here to decide if he should have been and your conduct is all that matters. But given that you were blocked for edit warring before you should be more than aware that it's impermissible, and there is that much less tolerance for further such actions on your part. Therefore I'm sustaining the block. — Daniel Case ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2012 (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.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Daniel Case ( talk) 20:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Acoma Magic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I haven't been edit warring and the admin didn't even provide any examples. The only thing I can think of is the Oprah article, but it was only two reverts and the second was because it had been 17 hours since the user said they were fixing the quality and I thought the user still hadn't yet fixed it. I don't see how it could be that, but it's the only thing I can think of. Acoma Magic ( talk) 3:40 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
One! One revert! Two! Two reverts! Three! Three reverts! Ah-ah-ah-ah! Danger! High voltage! 04:29, 22 September 2012 (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.
Well, I'm familiar with your history, as the above unblock denial should show. You want diffs? I got your diffs right here. And given your general tendency toward querulousness, you have made me deeply regret that this block wasn't indefinite as I had originally considered making it. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Acoma Magic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It was only two reverts. The first 'revert' listed above was just me removing an image that was added long ago. Obviously it's not a revert otherwise any action that removes any content from an article a few times would result in blocks, which doesn't happen. Acoma Magic ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) Your view that "It wasn't an undo though. It was removal of content that was added ages ago," has already been dealt with above, your misunderstanding having been explained at length. (2) Here are just two examples of the edit wars you have recently been engaged in: [2], [3], [4] and [5], [6], [7]. (3) The block was not only for edit warring, but also for general tendentious editing. If you keep on persistently plugging the same points long after it has become totally clear that your view is opposed to unambiguous consensus, then you are likely to be blocked to prevent further waste of everybody's time. (4) The one and only aspect of the block that might be subject to review is the remarkably short length of it. Considering your history of disruptive editing, edit warring, either inability or unwillingness to hear what people are saying, insistence that you alone are RIGHT in the face of consensus, and your previous blocks, a 72 hour block is really minimal. JamesBWatson ( talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (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.
Acoma Magic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It was only two reverts and although two reverts can be considered edit warring, I waited 17 hours for the person to make good on their promise to fix the quality of the image. I thought they still hadn't done that, as the image looked exactly the same, and so I reverted. They then made their third revert on that article (somehow avoiding a block in the process) and so I went to the talk page. Acoma Magic ( talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If there were ever an list of bad arguments to make when appealing your third edit warring block in as many weeks, "but it was only two reverts!" would be near the top of that list. Declined, talk page access revoked, and block extended to a week. T. Canens ( talk) 02:08, 23 September 2012 (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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I take it you are still pissed off about your original EW block?
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The debate about the standard offer is fairly pointless here, as I'm unlikely to get unblocked even if there was no standard offer and what I'm proposing was policy. I think I've amassed too many foes. A proposal to replace the standard offer should be started sometime (though I may be wrongly assuming I'm not alone in my assessment of it). Acoma Magic ( talk) 03:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
AM, I hear what you are saying, but waiting 6 months isn't so bad. Start working at commons, and after 6 months use your (hopefully productive) editing history there as a reason you should be unblocked (unbanned maybe). Perhaps X or TP can make additional suggestions, but I think this is your best, perhaps only path of getting back into the good graces of the community.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As a result of the discussion at WP:AN [8] you are now formally community banned from Wikipedia. The only way to get this ban lifted is to convince the community that you will not repeat any of the behaviors that led to this point. As such I would strongly advise you to immediately cease even looking at Wikipedia since you indicate you have trouble controlling your impulse to edit even after being blocked. If you follow the terms of the standard offer you may find that you can and will be welcomed back, this community can be surprisingly forgiving. If instead you continue doing what you have been doing, you will be regarded as a troll and a long-term abuser and will probably never be allowed to edit again. So, you have a choice to make here, I sincerely hope you go with the first path and we can one day have you back as productive user. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)