Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:39, 28 February 2008

(Yet another) WQA report

Someone filed a WQA report, which can be found WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist. Surprised no one has mentioned it to you yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And now WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist. I'm not for sure if the user is canvassing around or if he wasn't satisfied with the original answers from some editors. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 96 hours

Blocked for 96 hours for breaking your arbcom civility and AGF restrictions. You only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started, so your post on AN/AE mischaracterises your handling of this matter. You clearly did not intend to strike your comment prior to this. Obviously the previous shortened block did not have the desired effect. You are not allowed to be incivil and then recant - the arbcom case requires that you do not be incivil in the first place! John Vandenberg (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this, this morning. Sorry to hear about you being blocked again. As you see from my comments on the Bleep talk page, I think it is hardly worth while staying here. It was interesting learning about the film, but this is so obviously a losing battle. I am going to make the crisps with my son, now, and try and put this short episode behind me. With very best wishes. The Rationalist (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment to me in email, I can comment whereever I want as I have not taken any admin action in this recent matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

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

Request reason:

Please see WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist. There seems to be some misunderstanding that the blocking admin had with regards to the timeline. Please unblock me so that a proper review can be made of the situatiaon at AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your link does not convince me that the blocking admin acted in error. This was an incivil comment, regardless of whether or not you later retracted it, and under what circumstances. — Sandstein (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (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.

Unblocked

Per my comment here, I've unblocked you. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Seicer and privacy concerns

You have a very legitimate reason for opposing the above candidate, and I respect your opinion, but offering to send private emails to other members on request is quite a serious privacy issue. When users email you using the interface, they do so on the understanding that what they say is in private, and that includes there email staying only with you. Given that you are a respected user, people will take what you say as the truth (i.e. they will rocognise that there were civility problems in the email) but the exact email should stay with you. Whilst I respect that you did this in good faith as a compromise for posting it on wiki, even forwarding it on is a big no no. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure genius this one... Shot info (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on AN

Hello, ජපස. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#User:ScienceApologist.130.101.20.159 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being poked again

Hi SA, you're being poked again at AE (link). Just thought someone ought to let you know (you know, unlike the last couple of times). R. Baley (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE#ScienceApologist extended discrediting attacks

Notifying you of WP:AE#ScienceApologist extended discrediting attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

reported —Whig (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I dont know how you deal with the nonsense psudoscience pages all the time. I try, but I just cant force myself to do it. For doing what needs to be done, I offer you this tireless contributor barnstar. RogueNinjatalk 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I am asking you again to please strike through your remarks. I do not want to ask someone else to tell you, as you have requested I do, as my intention is not to have you blocked but to ask you to be civil. —Whig (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Glug, glug...mmm hint of almond... Shot info (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)