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 00:11, 19 January 2010 editDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →January 2010← 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 
(160 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Block reinstated ==
I acknowledge only one Misplaced Pages rule, ]. If you would like to speak to me in general terms, using real words, please leave your comments here. If you are here to do some ] or otherwise cite ] or ] to me, of any kind, I will likely remove your comment with no response. ] (]) 16:30, 15 January 2010 (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 -->
<hr>
{| style="border-spacing:2px; margin:0px" width="100%"
{| class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FCF2D9; background-color:#FFF; color:#FFF;font-size: 90%"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="background-color:#E2E7FF"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#F4F7FA; border:1px solid red; text-align:left; color:#082840; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.4em; padding-bottom: 0.4em; padding-right: 0.4em;">] Hello, {{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}.<br>You have been invited to ] the ], a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. <br>For more information, please visit the ], where you can ] and help rescue ].
|}</div>
<!--Template:Article Rescue Squadron invite-->


{{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)}}
== hi mr farang ==


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)
Hi,
⚫ :I was blanking the page ] (]) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
{{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)}}
*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)
I posted a comment for you on my talk page


== ] ==
thanks!


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)
] (]) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)RobinHood
== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==

{{tmbox
== Chaleo Yoovidhya ==
| style = background: #f8eaba;

| image = ]
I wanted to let you know that ] has been rewritten and is no longer a copyvio. If you encounter any other articles that need to be rewritten, you can add the {{tl|rewrite}} tag at the top of the article.
| 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 -->

}}
I know that "Farang" is Thai for foreigner. Are you fluent in Thai? Perhaps the article on ] could be expanded with information from the Thai Misplaced Pages at http:th.wikipedia.org , or the Thai article expanded with information from the English Misplaced Pages. - <font face="Verdana">] (])</font > 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks. Soon after doing that I realized there was probably a different tag I should have added instead of recommending it for deletion. I am nowhere near fluent in Thai and can't read or write it at all, sorry. ] (]) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

== Talkback ==

{{tb|TheWeakWilled}}

== January 2010 ==

] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages{{#if:SitNGo Wizard|, as you did to ]}}. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:Vandalism? The article is completely spam. If you'd like to remove all of the peacock terms, salesmanship and other non-neutral information, I will consider not bringing it to AFD ] (]) 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::The article uses a variety of neutral sources and is highly informative about the product.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 17:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::It is not written in a neutral way. It is written like a sales pitch. Either you agree to re-word it, or I am nominating it for deletion. ] (]) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::I don't know how little you have forgotten about poker, but you should learn how to write a decent article. As far as poker knowledge goes maybe you were a better beginner than me, but I am the best beginner I know (so I doubt you held a candle to me. Keep dreaming though. I will be better than you ever were, are or hope to be, but that is not relevant to the quality of the article). I will match my first 100,000 hands results with anyone's when I have completed them. Your half-arsed ] article is no model. Even my {{GAstar}} ] article is better and it is about the 100th best article I have written on WP. I know what a quality article is. Your deleted content is necessary to explain why the product is worth using to people who are not experts on poker.
#We do not write for experts.
#This is a tertiary resource. If the secondary sources that we are summarizing mention topics, that is what we are summarizing. We are not summarizing what you need to know about poker. We are summarizing what the poker software reviewers discuss about the article.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::I have lost all passion for improving at poker so you may well get better than me or better than I was- but if you classify yourself as a beginner now, even a very 'good' beginner, I know far more than you about the game - and especially about SNG's. I have played tens of thousands of them and well over 1,000,000 hands of poker. I wish you luck in your quest but making a comment like 'if you don't know enough about poker to...' does not apply to me. The article should not be explaining to people why they should use the product - that is what advertising is for. The PokerTracker article does not explain to people why they should use PokerTracker, it just explains what PokerTracker is. Going into in-depth discussion about the nature of an SNG is not relevant to that article. As I said, that is what internal links are for. If you keep reverting my edits I'm going to report you for a 3rr violation. You should leave your submissions to that article alone and let other editors handle them - especially considering you were paid to create it. ] (]) 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

==]==
It appears that you began the process to create an AFD for ], but didn't finish it. I've completed the process for you. If this isn't what you wanted, you'll need to make the appropriate changes. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>] ❦ (] ❖ ] ❖ ]) ❦</span> 20:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
⚫ :Thank you! ] (]) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article because it didn't specify one of the deletion categories at ]. You mention notability in the edit summary, so perhaps speedy category A7, "no indication of importance" is the closest fit, but it also says, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance". In this case, the article makes the claim that she's significant because of her "third highest woman at the WSOP" ranking. I've put a "proposed deletion" tag on it, so if no-one objects it'll be deleted in 7 days, but if someone removes that tag it'll need to be taken to ]. ] (]) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:I'm not good with wiki procedure but I know that being the 3rd woman remaining in one single poker tournament certainly doesn't qualify you for inclusion. I believe it is something along the lines of 'notability because of one event and not likely to be notable again' or something - but thanks. I'll address this later if somebody removes the tag. ] (]) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::Sure, it'd probably get deleted at AFD if someone removes the tag. Speedies only get approved if they meet one of the criteria at ], otherwise an admin will turn it down. For notability, you can only get articles speedy deleted if they make (1) no statement of significance at all, or (2) if the statement isn't credible, like an article on some schoolkid claiming he's the President. Anything that ''looks'' like a statement of significance will get the speedy turned down, because the single admin deleting as a speedy can't really be relied on to judge whether "3rd woman remaining at WSOP" means she's notable in poker terms, and it has to go to a deletion discussion. The speedies are only for uncontroversial deletions, where a single admin can be trusted to make the call. ] (]) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I didn't know that, thanks. ] (]) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (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)