User talk:Bryce Carmony: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 651428950 by Bryce Carmony (talk) Already back-damn. |
I am removing my unblock request because I no longer wish to be unblocked (early ) I'll wait for the block to expire. |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for persistent [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:5 albert square|5 albert square]] ([[User talk:5 albert square|talk]]) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for persistent [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:5 albert square|5 albert square]] ([[User talk:5 albert square|talk]]) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> |
||
::"You may change your request at any time" That is what it says, so I am changing my request. and removing them. I can ignore all rules and make wikipedia better by removing my request to be unblocked. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|reason= 5 albert square has refused to assume good faith, he says that I am WP:POINTY but doesn't say which edits are disruptive he just uses the ambiguous claim. I request that future bans come from a different admin since 5 Albert square bans for personal reasons instead of what is best for Wikipedia. [[User:Bryce Carmony|Bryce Carmony]] ([[User talk:Bryce Carmony#top|talk]]) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)|decline=Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)}} |
|||
:As it says, '''Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.'''. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock|reason=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Wikipedia,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? [[User:Bryce Carmony|Bryce Carmony]] ([[User talk:Bryce Carmony#top|talk]]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)}} |
|||
[[user:5 albert square]] and [[user:Jpgordon]] are why women don't edit wikipedia. admin abuse like theirs |
|||
And I quote Jpgordon: {{tquote|'''Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.'''}} The policy is [[WP:BLANKING]]. [[User:Origamite|Origamite]]<sup>[[User talk:Origamite|ⓣ]][[Special:Contributions/Origamite|ⓒ]]</sup> 03:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:33, 15 March 2015
Your 8,000 merger proposals
Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Wikipedia, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving Content Forking where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Wikipedia, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin.
- You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a Randy from Boise argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Wikipedia is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)- "You may change your request at any time" That is what it says, so I am changing my request. and removing them. I can ignore all rules and make wikipedia better by removing my request to be unblocked.