Welcome!
Hello, Theduinoelegy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
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!-- Mishae ( talk) 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have written only five articles on fish. I would suggest you visit a page of our Ukrainian fish expert though, @ Ykvach:)-- Mishae ( talk) 22:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
KonveyorBelt 22:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.This notice is just FYI, but you are also close to WP:3RR currently on Anita Sarkeesian. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
See WP:AE#Edit war at Anita Sarkeesian. You may reply there if you wish. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Due to your disruptive behavior on Anita Sarkeesian I'm imposing upon you a 90 day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 04:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You are hereby notified of the existance of [3], a request for enforcement of your topic ban. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The appropriate place to converse with other users is on their talk page, not their user pages. In this edit, you edited my user page - User:Hipocrite. You should have, instead, edited User_talk:Hipocrite, my user-talk page. Hope that helps! Hipocrite ( talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay final warning. If you continue to act disruptively I will block your account without further notice. Chillum 17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Read it any way you like. Regarding your question about truth, you may want to look at WP:TRUTH. You are not the first person to come here demanding your version of truth he heard. Chillum 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If you had read the link I gave you then you would understand Wikipedia's position on truth. I won't paraphrase the essay for you, you can read it if you like. Chillum 17:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
22:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
I have blocked you for one month following this edit [5] to Anita Sarkeesian in violation of your 90-day topic ban. Additionally, the topic ban is extended to one year from the original date of the topic ban, 25 February 2015. Expiration of your block did not remove the topic ban, and expiration of the current block will not affect the ban's extension. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: this sort of edit [6]. You don't own this talkpage, Wikipedia owns it, and you may not refactor other editors' comments. It's one thing to change signature colors, it's another thing to pretend someone said something that they didn't. If it happens again you will not be able to edit this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Mkdw
talk
23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Theduinoelegy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for reasons that make no sense and are all to do with a set of Anita Sarkeesian edits. I am very obviously here to help with Wikipedia and the reason for the block is an idealogically motivated lie. Theduinoelegy ( talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Reading over the ANI thread which resulted in your indef block, I'd say there were quite a few good reasons for it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:18, 22 February 2016 (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.
Theduinoelegy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only ( talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (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.
Bullcrap. You and I both know it was for lies which is why you won't specify your 'good reasons'.