Misplaced Pages

User talk:DegenFarang: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:33, 12 January 2009 editBalloonman (talk | contribs)25,417 edits →1 hour block: fix link← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:43, 4 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(428 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Block reinstated ==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. A page you recently created{{#if:Junket (vacation)|, ],}} may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's ] for new pages, so it will shortly be ] (if it hasn't been already). Please use the ] for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read ]. You may also want to read our ] to learn more about contributing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-create1 --> See ]. ] (]) 12:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for harassing other users and violating your unblock conditions . If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}, but you should read the ] first. &nbsp;&mdash; <strong><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">]</span></strong> 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef -->
==Speedy deletion of ]==
] A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on ] subjects and should provide references to ] that ] their content.


{{unblock reviewed|reason=As discussed at the ANI, an interaction ban accomplishes the same thing. 99% of my problems on Misplaced Pages and nearly all of my blocks are from interacting with one other editor. If we were banned from interacting, this problem would go away, and Misplaced Pages would retain a valuable editor.|decline=I have spent some long time reading through the ANI thread and your and ]'s edits. Having done so I do not believe that you will, if unblocked, be a net positive influence here.--]] 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}}
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that a copy be emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-nocontext-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 15:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


While we wait for your unblock request to be reviewed, I don't suppose you could explain (mainly for the unblocking admin's benefit) for the rationale of ? ] ] ] 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
==]==
:I was blanking the page ] (]) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
]<!-- use ] for YELLOW flag -->
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Seeking second opinion. You can read my reason for requesting the unblock above. | decline=Procedural. Anthony's decline above ''is'' a second opinion. You don't get to shop around until you find an admin who'll give you the response you want. Either file a better unblock request, or expect to lose your talkpage access. ]&nbsp;]&zwj;] 22:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}}
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the ], because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on ] subjects and should provide references to ] that ] their content.
*I will leave this for another admin to review, but I don't feel like we can take you at your word. It was nearly a year ago that you said Clearly, that was not the case. You have already had your second chance, your third chance... and so on. You want a ''ninth'' chance to prove you can exercise some self control? Do you really think it is realistic to expect that? I would suggest you consider the ] only maybe make it more like a year instead of six months. Maybe in that length of time you will learn to let go of this grudge and participate here in a way that is beneficial rather than disruptive. ] (]) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::I don't need any chances with an interaction ban. As soon as I violated it he would report me. I guess a year is not a long time in WikiTime but I think I did show a lot of self control. It took a year to get here again lol ] (]) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::One way interaction bans are rarely if ever workable, and constraining another editor to avoid you would be placing an unfair restriction on their editing because of ''your'' behaviour. As such, an indefinite block (and, given , I think we can take out the "de") is the most equitable solution for Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;]&zwj;] 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::::It's not just my behavior, he's just much better at wikilawyering and I'm very bad at it. If I was as well versed in digging up old stuff and citing various policies, he would have been blocked a long time ago. ] (]) 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
And just lost you the ability to edit this talkpage. ]&nbsp;]&zwj;] 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


:Yep, that pretty clearly indicated that there is no reason to continue to discuss this with you. I would repeat my suggestion to take an extended break, then try appealing to ] ] (]) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that ] wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template '''<code>{{tl|hangon}}</code>''' to the page and state your intention on the article's ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Empty-warn --> ] (]) 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


== Joran van der Sloot == == ] ==


Noting for the record that Degen has engaged in more tag edit-warring here while already blocked. Have blocked the IP and tried to express to him what a bad idea that was. ] (]) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Some of your comments made me think you may have misread things. There's no manhunt going on for Van der Sloot, and there's not a good chance he will ever be arrested for the murder of Natalee Holloway. DeVries really screwed everything up with the confession tapes, and, even if the tapes are 100% true, the contents aren't acceptable in court. This thing with the Thai prostitution ring is separate. If it continues to get press, I'll push for building a separate article.&mdash;](]) 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==

{{tmbox

| style = background: #f8eaba;
==Welcome==
| image = ]
'''Welcome!'''
| text = '''''This account has been ] indefinitely''''' from editing for ] per evidence presented at ]. Note that multiple accounts are ], ''but'' using them for ] reasons '''is not'''. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}} below, but you should read the ] first. ''']]]''' 07:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)<!-- Template:SockBlock -->

}}
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]}}. 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 ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> ] (]) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

== Proper language ==

You, sir, are clearly a gentleman: . --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

==Some policies to check out==
You seem to have gotten mad at me, and thus went and attacked many articles because you are unfamiliar with wiki policies. You should read up on them. First, it is allowed to cite yourself or a website you own under reasonable circumstances, ] and ], but when most of your edits are just citing theplayr.com, that goes into ] single purpose account territory. Additionally, there is no way theplayr.com is the ''best'' source for something like a European Poker Tour result, the official site or another owned by the company promoting the EPT is better for that. Third, some of theplayr.com articles are anonymous. That is obviously not as good as articles that are signed, and of course articles signed by experts are even better. ] and ] explain that the more contentious something is, the stonger source that is needed, especially for a living person ]. No fourth party source for ten million dollars worth of losses is going to cut it, short of the new York Times or something like that. So please take a deep breath and contribute to the Misplaced Pages articles in good faith, and when your website can reliably source something that isn't extremely controversial, go ahead and add it, but if someone comes along and replaces it with MSNBC or new York Times reference, don't get all bent out of shape at them. (Also, David Williams is a Magic the gathering player too, which is why his article is (card player) and not (poker player). ] (]) 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:The link on the Tom Dwan article for example seems fine because it is not overly controversial. The online poker one is also okay. It would be better though if those articles were signed, and if the CNN or the Wall Street Journal reported hte same thing, it would be reasonable to change the references to those. So if you just keep any references to articles, especially signed ones, that are factual (not opinion), then you should be fine. ] (]) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Poker Babes ==

Before this turns into an edit war, I'm asking you, 2005, and the others involved to start discussing the Poker Babes bio's ]. This is getting ridiculous.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== 1 hour block ==

Degen, You have been blocked for edit warring. Until we discuss the page and get a resolution on ] please do not go around unilaterally reverting the pages to your desired page. This is a community project, and making changes to 30+ pages simply because a user pissed you off is unacceptable and doesn't look good. Make your case at WP:POKER, not via scores of edits that are simply going to be reverted. While Poker Babes might not be the most notable site, and you might be able to convince others of that, edit warring is not the way to do this. I made it a short block so that you can continue the discussion, but next time, if you choose to make the edits unilaterally, the block will be for longer.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:I do not see the reason for removing this link, which I included as part of my original version the ] article. Please do not remove this again without consensus. I support the block. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:43, 4 January 2023

Block reinstated

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassing other users and violating your unblock conditions . If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — madman 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

As discussed at the ANI, an interaction ban accomplishes the same thing. 99% of my problems on Misplaced Pages and nearly all of my blocks are from interacting with one other editor. If we were banned from interacting, this problem would go away, and Misplaced Pages would retain a valuable editor.

Decline reason:

I have spent some long time reading through the ANI thread and your and 2005's edits. Having done so I do not believe that you will, if unblocked, be a net positive influence here.--Anthony Bradbury 21:06, 21 February 2013 (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.

While we wait for your unblock request to be reviewed, I don't suppose you could explain (mainly for the unblocking admin's benefit) for the rationale of this revert? Ritchie333 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was blanking the page DegenFarang (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Seeking second opinion. You can read my reason for requesting the unblock above.

Decline reason:

Procedural. Anthony's decline above is a second opinion. You don't get to shop around until you find an admin who'll give you the response you want. Either file a better unblock request, or expect to lose your talkpage access. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:35, 21 February 2013 (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.

I don't need any chances with an interaction ban. As soon as I violated it he would report me. I guess a year is not a long time in WikiTime but I think I did show a lot of self control. It took a year to get here again lol DegenFarang (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
One way interaction bans are rarely if ever workable, and constraining another editor to avoid you would be placing an unfair restriction on their editing because of your behaviour. As such, an indefinite block (and, given this, I think we can take out the "de") is the most equitable solution for Misplaced Pages. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not just my behavior, he's just much better at wikilawyering and I'm very bad at it. If I was as well versed in digging up old stuff and citing various policies, he would have been blocked a long time ago. DegenFarang (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And that just lost you the ability to edit this talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty clearly indicated that there is no reason to continue to discuss this with you. I would repeat my suggestion to take an extended break, then try appealing to WP:BASC Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:172.6.236.155

Noting for the record that Degen has engaged in more tag edit-warring here while already blocked. Have blocked the IP and tried to express to him what a bad idea that was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rschen7754 07:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)