Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:29, 13 December 2009

Welcome!Last edited: Last edited by:02:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Momo san (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, 66.177.73.86, is registered to Comcast Cable Communications Holdings Inc, Jacksonville FL Pool, an Internet service provider through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy, so you may receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Misplaced Pages in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block. Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Gatemansgc (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was all I wanted. Don't mistake me for a vandal as, like I said, I've been a regular contributor for years.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why I used a level 1 template. If i was a more experienced recent changes patroller, I'd have probably found a more approprate template... Now that I looked closer, that was more using talk pages as a forum, which would be subst:uw-chat1Gatemansgc (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I always found those "using talk pages as forums" rules to be ridiculous. Why can't we use our own personal talk pages as forums? I see everyone discussing frivolous nonsense on their talk pages (include admins) anyways, so this rule is rather pointless. Still, my favorite "Misplaced Pages moment" was when I got banned for reverting vandalism. Yes, you heard me correctly. A registered user vandalized a page, and I reverted it. However, since I'm anonymous, people just assume I'm a vandal and revert all my edits. They not only reverted my reverting multiple times, but actually banned me for reverting vandalism. Those dumbass admins have never failed to ruin everything Misplaced Pages has to offer.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between using your own talk page as a forum and using an article talk page as a forum (which you were doing).

Seriously? That's ridiculous! Was the registered user doing obvious vandalism, like BLP violations or something like that? Gatemansgc (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user was changing a quote in an article. The real quote was "Get that shit off the air!" This user changed the word "shit" to "heck", despite the fact that "Get that heck off the air" is NOT what Kerry Packer said, and it doesn't even make any sense. When I changed it back to the real quote, I was reverted numerous times and banned. I even used real evidence (and the Australia's Naughtiest Home Videos article) to back up my claims, but they simply ignored me. In addition, they completely removed the quote from both articles. Idiots.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You probably got flagged by all the anti-vandalism things because you were re-adding language to an article, despite it belonging there, since Misplaced Pages is not censored. The editors that reverted you were probably paying more attention to their edit counts than the actual content. Seriously, a proven quote from another article (which is there today) should have been enough... Well, Misplaced Pages will never be perfect... Gatemansgc (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what originally happened (a bot reverted me). Then a bunch of idiot "vandal fighters" started ganging up on me. To be honest, I don't think there's a single admin that I like.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, makes total sense. Usually, once a bot reverts an IP, everyone who sees that the person is re-adding something reverted by a bot assumes they are putting back vandalism. Again, it doesn't help that the vandal fighters are fighting for the edit, trying to do it as fast as possible, and the more edits against you, the worse it got... And there's tons of admins on Misplaced Pages, you'll find one you like eventually. Gatemansgc (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it seems like most people don't even check what they're reverting. They don't even care what they're reverting. These "vandal fighters" are just racing against each other to make as many edits as humanly possible. Do these people ever sleep? Sometimes I wonder if they're not super-intelligent computers disguised as humans. And it seems like, once a user gets crowned "admin", they become a pretentious, power-crazed, self-important douche. Even the nicest folks are corrupted when they become an admin. It's sad, really.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I sometimes wonder if they sleep, too... But at least most of the vandal fighters check what they did after reverting. Plenty of times you'll see them undoing their own edit. Not always, but mostly. And power has always corrupted... Gatemansgc (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep - it's basic human nature. Give someone power - especially someone who doesn't know how to use it - and they're pretty much guaranteed to use it for their own selfish needs.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's no wonder there's so many countries led by dictators... They taste power and can't let it go. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why it's absolutely crucial that the "head of state"'s power be limited - even if he doesn't like it. They should never have "be-all/end-all" power over everything.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting New Account

There are many benefits to registering an account, and really no drawbacks. You can still use an anonymous username of your choosing. Please see WP:WHY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had an account a few years ago. Under that account, I made a complete fool out of myself and eventually got permanently banned for being an obnoxious idiot. Looking back, it's downright embarrassing. I've matured a lot since then. I no longer act like an obnoxious idiot and get myself banned. But, ever since I had that account, I've been reluctant to create another account. I'll have to "start all over again", and nobody will even know who I am. They won't know about the infinite contributions I made while I was anonymous.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best that people don't know your old contributions. You'll have a fresh start, and all you have to do is start out with tons of highly positive contributions, like most of what you were doing before, and you'll be a respected editor. It's not the edit count that counts. Gatemansgc (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right. But it seems like all people ever focus on is their edit counts. *sigh*--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, be different. Just edit constructively and don't give a damn about edit counts. The edits will speak for themselves. The only time edit count really counts is the first 10 to becoming autoconfirmed. Gatemansgc (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to explain, but I want people to know that I'm not a "n00b". I've been here longer than some admins! I think I started editing when I was... what... 10? I want everyone to know that I've been here for years, and that only the account is new. In addition, there's a charming sort of "mystery" about being anonymous.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a while. And started when 10? That's amazing... When I was 10, Misplaced Pages wasn't even started yet... But once you've established yourself as a great editor, you can link back to your old account or something like that, since someone would only accuse o sockpuppetry if you were vandalizing. for the last part, you could choose a username so boring and generic you'd seem anonymous. XD Gatemansgc (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could tell everyone that I've been editing since I was 10, but linking to my old account would take a lot of guts. I can't even stand to look at my edits from that old account. It just makes me cringe. It's too embarrassing for me to think about. That was when I was 11. I'm 14 now. But nobody has to know that. ^_~ Hey, maybe I could be the youngest admin some day... Not only will I be the youngest admin, but I'll be the only admin who isn't a power-crazed Wiki-Nazi. Of course, they'll probably ban me for not being a power-crazed Wiki-Nazi, but...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That bad, eh? XP Well, shooting to be the youngest admin would be a great goal! Gives you something to work towards, and would definitely be very interesting. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty awful. I was so unbelievably childish back then. I (more than) once posted a made-up rap song about Willy on Wheels and punching another user in the face, for example. And I had sockpuppets as well. I can't believe I actually expected people to believe the whole "it was a different person" schtick. It could not have been any more obvious. To be honest, I have vandalized under my anonymous IP addresses. Just for the hell of it, I guess. When you're anonymous, it can be kinda hard to resist at times. But, of course, I wouldn't do that if I had an account. And my age would probably get in the way of me becoming an admin.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User:Gatemansgc. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you will be blocked from editing. Andrea105 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He literally asked me to vandalize his page. Check his talk page, idiot. XD--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did ask. Gatemansgc (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

there is a conversation regarding you at ANI with regards to the legal threat you made to an editor http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_on_users_talk_page Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be a little more straightforward: You MUST remove and recant your legal threat or you will be blocked. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more straightforward, you are blocked for the next 72 hours for disruptive behaviour. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that back, my apologies. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I saw the response at AN/I a little bit ago and wanted to stop in and offer my apologies for over reacting. It was not my intention to start trouble with you but more to follow the spirit of the guidelines regarding legal threats. I certainly should have read more into the context of what you were saying and not just the words. One of the harder parts of reverting vandalism is differentiating between good faith edits, deliberate vandalism and threatening or combative behavior. Now I am not so full of myself that I cannot admit when I am wrong. Indeed I spend quite a bit more time apologizing for mistakes and misunderstanding, than I do contributing to articles I enjoy working on. But I hope you can understand the position I was in and understand that it was not even remotely personal. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please tell the powers that be to stop blocking me from accessing Misplaced Pages.org? >_>--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked. Be good, and you won't get blocked again.--Unionhawk 12:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was my bad. You were blocked for about 3 minutes, which is short but still really annoying. Again, my apologies for that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about. I didn't even know I was blocked, because I couldn't access the English Misplaced Pages.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's odd... As far as I know, there are no mechanisms in place to prevent access. That leads me to think that it is not a block, but some sort of bug or malfunction you're experiencing. Could you well me what happened when you tried to access the site, so I can see if I can file a bugreport or something? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The first times I got blocked, it showed up as "Page Not Found", and then some technobabble stuff below it. The second times I got blocked, it just showed up as a blank page with "Does Not Exist", or something like that.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... That's very wierd... Blocking editing theoretically has no effect on viewing Misplaced Pages.--Unionhawk 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The Page Not Found is very weird. When that happened, did you have issues reaching other sites too? About the technobabble error, I really need the technobabble to say something usefull about it. I can say one thing with certainty: This has nothing to do with blocking or banning you or anything. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

For this comment on ANI about trolls vandals etc. We mean WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked once more

Blocked 72 hours for Personal attacks (). This is your final warning. NW (Talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My "final warning"? So... what happens if I violate this "final warning"? Are you going to come to my house and shoot me?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be against wikipedia policy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so, but I was just making sure.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, threats of violence are against the rules, but I'm not so sure about actual violence. It's a fine line of technicalitiness. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh... I better make sure all the doors are locked.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If it were Christmas eve instead of Thanksgiving eve, I could give you the following sound advice from Weird Al Yankovic's "Christmas at Ground Zero":

You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop

Or Jack Frost on your windowsill

But if someone's climbin' down your chimney

You'd better load your gun and shoot to kill

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's quite enough from you. I'm revoking your access to edit your own talk page for the remainder of the block. MuZemike 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not use talk pages such as WP:ANI for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Your additions to WP:ANI are not constructive. Don't just chime in with jokes, observations, etc. that are not relevant to the discussion at hand. —ShadowRanger  22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blech. Template was not really what I was going for, but you get the idea. Don't just add unconstructive nonsense to WP:ANI. —ShadowRanger  22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But... can I add unconstructive nonsense if the whole discussion is unconstructive nonsense?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, just because everyone else is jumping off a cliff doesn't mean you should too. Did your mother not inform you of this as a child? —ShadowRanger  22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki activity leading to blocks

Re: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "Well, users can be blocked for their behavior on other websites" - I think the only times this happens is when the off-wiki behavior intertwines with on-wiki behavior, such as harrassing a person by his wikipedia handle or making reference to his Misplaced Pages account, or when the Arbitration Committee is involved.

Well, I distinctly remember reading about users being blocked for their behavior on other websites. In fact, there was an admin (an admin I HATED) who got blocked for something he did on another website.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You should consider registering. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

You were warned and have been blocked several times about your conduct at WP:ANI. Furthermore, and are completely unacceptable. MuZemike 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Completely unacceptable"? You completely misunderstood my intentions. With , I was trying to comfort the editor by joking with him about how ridiculous his stalker was acting. With , I was simply asking a question that I felt had significant importance to the issue at hand.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, I did that was "disruptive"?

Decline reason:

{{subst:In reviewing your posts for the last 48 hours it is apparent to me that you are an experienced editor. As such, you should obviously be aware of what constitutes good editing practices. Your recent edits have been nothing short of disruptive; goading others, and outright trolling. If you honestly wanted to contribute in a constructive manner, you would not be inserting your edits in threads in the provocative manner in which you have. I decline your request for unblock. Please take some time to rethink your approach to editing here, and return with a more positive and productive effort.}} — Ched :  ?  03:02, 12 December 2009 (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.

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

Request reason:

Please see my response on the bottom of the page. You completely misunderstood my intentions. With , I was trying to comfort the editor by joking with him about how ridiculous his stalker was acting. With , I was simply asking a question that I felt had significant importance to the issue at hand.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (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.

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

Request reason:

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.

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=Alright, I ''understand'' how some of my comments could be misconstrued as insults. It was never my intent to be obnoxious or insulting, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm sorry for any disruption I may have caused, and will try to be extra-careful about what I say from now on.--] (]) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) |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=Alright, I ''understand'' how some of my comments could be misconstrued as insults. It was never my intent to be obnoxious or insulting, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm sorry for any disruption I may have caused, and will try to be extra-careful about what I say from now on.--] (]) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) |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=Alright, I ''understand'' how some of my comments could be misconstrued as insults. It was never my intent to be obnoxious or insulting, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm sorry for any disruption I may have caused, and will try to be extra-careful about what I say from now on.--] (]) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock