User talk:Wordfunk

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wordfunk, 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
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
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, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordfunk, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Wordfunk! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nickdigital2.0/Lipsum[edit]

Hi. I have declined your speedy nomination because the attack elements of this page were the result of recent vandalism. The page itself seems to be an abandoned draft, but it is not speediable on that account. I will probably nominate it at WP:MFD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Indian pariah dog with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian pariah dog[edit]

I would suggest starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs Just deleting a large amount of content with wp:citations as you did here without adding an wp:edit summary raises red flags. The content has been there awhile, so it would seem to not matter too much if it remains there while a discussion takes place. wp:dispute resolution covers the recommended way to resolve disputes. Also, if someone reverts your edit, it is best to discuss on the talk page as you have done and the other editor has not responded to. You can either wp:ping (for instance {{ping|Jim1138)}} a registered user (with a user name) or leave {{talkback|Wordfunk}} template on the editor's talk page. If you use ping, you need to add the ping, sign your message with four tildes "~~~~" and save both at the same time or the notification will not be sent. For questions, please leave a message at the wp:Teahouse. My apology regards getting back to you so slowly. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war notification[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indian pariah dog. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why the notice above[edit]

You made edits here
You were reverted here
You reverted here without comment.
You were reverted again here
You again reverted here

i.e. edit warring. If you had reverted four times, you would be up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for recommendations.
And, no, I will not apologize nor remove my warning. It was quite appropriate. Feel free to do so yourself. Jim1138 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten and Apology[edit]

Fylbecatulous has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Good morning, I am the one who needs to apologise: for undoing both of your edits at Cat. The first about the musical instruments did need to be done better and you did a good change the second time. But I carelessly reverted your good edit about the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment in the process. I confess I was led astray by your newness and the cautions you had already received on your page. That unfortunately is my error and I shall try harder to be careful to examine all facets of a change before I undo it. You could have rightfully come fussing to my talk page about my treatment of you as an editor. I give you my best apology, even though it comes with a kitten. ツ I wish you all the best and happy editing. Fylbecatulous talk 13:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian pariah dog, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Outsider and Admixture. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Stop posting User talk:Jim1138. You're courting a harassment problem. Tiderolls,

You were warned once already - this is your final warning. Drop the argument and move on, if you continue the posts on this subject at User talk:Jim1138, you will be blocked for harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for abuse of editing privileges. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:59, 14 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Let's look closer at this. An editor @Jim1138: made an erroneous and damaging accusation, and replaced completely duplicated content immediately below where I had merely paragraphized it. Here, under History section. I politely requested that he looked at the mistake, and removed and eraze it the erroneous and damaging accusation from my talk page. He refused to do so, and now you block me? And you still don't don't remove and eraze the tag, even though it would take less effort than doing all this? Explain why. Why should I have to live with an erroneous and damaging accusation? Wasn't I the one who was being falsely harassed? Is the voluntary work I did of no value at all to the Wikipedia? Was it not the right thng to do, to remove the immediately duplicated material? Wordfunk (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were told multiple times to stay off his talk page. You were given a final warning. You broke that final warning. Block is totally justified and nothing you've said above provides a good reason to remove the block as you haven't even addressed the reason for the block: your harassment and continual posted at his talk page despite being warned not to. only (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2016 (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.

I would advise you to delete your unblock request and resubmit after you have read the WP:GAB. Your request does not address the issue that resulted in the block and will almost certainly be declined. Tiderolls 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your acknowledgement, you were edit warring in a content dispute (it may not fit your personal definition of either, but it does fit Wikipedia's definition of both). You then began asking Jim1138 to apologize and remove the warning. That user declined multiple such requests, but advised (above on this page) "feel free to do so yourself". Rather than doing so, you continued to hound the other user over this, despite being warned by two different admins to stop the harassment. The block was 100% appropriate. When the block expires, you are strongly advised to not resume the harassment - doing so will simply result in longer term blocks. Instead, try moving onto article improvements. If you need help, feel free to seek assistance at either the Wikipedia:Help desk or to seek guidance on the community at Wikipedia:Teahouse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 14 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not one of you, even now, can address the matter of @Jim1138: reverting a complete duplication of the 3 paragraphs immediately above it.

Do you think I am stupid?

I cannot remove and eraze the erroneous warning. User privileges do not allow me to do so.

You know this. I know you know this. It would always remain there to be use against me, and Jim1138 knows this too.

Instead, you're all desperately ignoring it, circling the wagons around to protect one of your own and turning it on me ... which only empowers Jim to be even more of an asshole to the next person who comes along, and gives their time to improve an article which has had a clean up tag on it for years.

Why the would or should anyone have to suck that up? And why would they come back for more?

What is this website about, the content or protecting fragile egos who cannot admit when they did something wrong?

Wordfunk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:50, 14 January 2016 (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.

Again, I would advise you to delete your unblock request and resubmit after you have read the WP:GAB. Your request does not address the issue that resulted in the block and will almost certainly be declined. Bear in mind that abusing the unblock template, which is what you're doing by posting request reasons that have previously been declined, can lead to the loss of the ability to edit this page. By the way, you are able to remove any warning from your user talk. Tiderolls 19:39, 14 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am asking for the original unblock request to be re-considered as you ignored the root cause of it. Don't tell me that it was a content dispute because no one ever, not even @Jim1138:, has disputed that the material was an unnecessary and non-beneficial duplication. Thank you Wordfunk (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Again, not an actual unblock request. You're wasting our times by not actually using the unblock template for its intended purpose, therefore, I am disabling your ability to edit this talk page for the rest of the block. only (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2016 (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.

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Your most recent sockpuppet account has been blocked per Wikipedia policy. Note that socks used for block evasion can be blocked immediately, and edits reverted.

Due to the talk page of your original account (this page) also being blocked due to your abuse of talk page privileges, your only remaining acceptable method to discuss your block or to request its removal is by using Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System.

Note that prior to starting that discussion, it's highly recommended that you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested at WP:ANI that when you requested "removal", you meant that you wanted a "Revision deletion".

If that is the case, please note that (a) Jim1138 also does not have the ability to perform a RevDel, and (b) even if he did, Wikipedia policy restricts the use of RevDel to only specific situations - it's not a tool that admins have free-will to utilize as they personally choose. Performing a RevDel on the warning on your talk page would not be an appropriate use of the tool per that policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I have restored talk page access on this page. Should abuse of the {{unblock}} template resume, or other talk page abuse take place, that access could potentially be revoked at a later date. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued socking[edit]

I stopped reading posts by your sock accounts over a week or two ago (most are reverted by other editors and admins before I even see them - and I fully welcome those reverts on my talk page); but I saw your edit at user talk:C.Fred. As to your claim to C.Fred that we are having a "discussion", there is nothing to discuss - see WP:STICK.

As to your claim of not socking, you should read WP:Sockpuppet, which expressly prohibits the use of additional accounts to evade a block. Despite your claims, you are socking - just as despite your claims, you were harassing Jim1138, and despite your claims you were in a content dispute, and edit warring is not acceptable regardless of which version is a claimed improvement (few exceptions exist, and none of those apply to your case). Everything that has taken place has been a direct result of your own actions, and your utter and complete disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which have been mentioned to you from the very start. It's unfortunate that you cannot see that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]