User talk:Mfwnoface

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mfwnoface, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Ray Kurzweil. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sword Art Online, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. iGeMiN ix 20:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Sword Art Online, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Yes Kotaku is a gaming website and not an anime website, but it is still considered a reliable source, and any reception from any reliable source is greatly appreciated. While being bold is good for an encyclopedia, now was probably not the right time to be so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 02:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and creating attacking user page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. - Bbb23 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I realize my opinions are wrong and I should never voice them. I am sorry. May I be unblocked? I will not repeat my actions.

Decline reason:

Facepalm. For some reason, something tells me this request is sarcastic. We are not asking that you do not voice your opinions, instead we are asking that you do so in a collegiate and respectful manner. Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am deeply sorry that I was coming off as sarcastic and I would like to be unblocked. I will not voice my opinions again.

Decline reason:

And what about the rest of the reason for your block? I don't think you're understanding the reason for the block; you're acting like we're trying to silence your opinion, when we just want you to show you can edit cooperatively with other. Are you willing to do so? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will not continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia and would like to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

As you seem to understand only sarcasm, I can only say "oh yes, this was fully non-disruptive, and met the community nature of Wikipedia" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Okay, so while I'm trying to appeal a block for a 'personal' attack, I myself get insulted and treated like a child. I don't even see how my edits were disruptive. Every single one of them was 100% fine. Oooh, are they too offensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfwnoface (talk • contribs)

All of your edits were disruptive, why should we believe you? What is the first action you would take if unblocked? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for how your edits were disruptive, changing things against what their sources state was unacceptable (the now-thankfully-deleted userpage you created was childish), implying someone bears genetic defects and is like an animal was unacceptable (all of your edits to the MattyBraps were childish), replacing a well sourced piece of information with is unacceptable, screwing up TV formats was unacceptable, and removing sourced information just because you don't like it was unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground.

Admins, I don't think we're going to get anything out of letting him continue to post unblock requests. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I'm right. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Down syndrome. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I provided an unbiased and useful sentence that helped people greater understand people with Down's syndrome. Not only is my edit unbiased and well written, but it was also true. So even though I made a helpful edit, I get blocked because <personal attack redacted>

Decline reason:

Charming. I've revoked your talk page access. Danger ^{High voltage!} 04:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

February 2013[edit]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to The D ‎. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pichpich. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of weight training exercises ‎ because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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. Dianna (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think it's pretty offensive to say my account is used only for vandalism, just because you interpret my additions as offensive. I am a blunt person and all of my contributions, yes, every single one of them, has been justified. In recent contribution to the page 'The D' I added 'The Dick' to the list. I added this because it is an actual phrase used commonly on both the internet and real life. Not only would this be offensive to pretty much only soccer moms, but it's very harsh to suggest that anything sexual should automatically be characterized as inappropriate. If you are just going to make a pretentious reply saying it's offensive because you said so, then fine, do that. I'm sure Jimmy Wales would agree with you more than me, I'm 100% sure.Mfwnoface (talk) 10:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Offensive? Not especially. Disruptive, trolling, vandalism? Absolutely. It's self-evident from your editing history that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, and your above appeal does nothing to convince otherwise. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discussion[edit]

Who is Scooby? And why do you think this was a valid and useful addition to the encyclopedia? -- Dianna (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this one "people with Down's Syndrome are often not considered to be part of the human race" [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who would find this inaccurate? You're just sayin' it like it is and articles on living people need that sort of bluntness... Trolling is a form of vandalism. Pichpich (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]