User talk:Aathies
July 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm Mophedd. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mophedd (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rape (county subdivision). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Mophedd (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Aathies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello administrator Bongwarrior, I believe my recent indefinite block was done for good reason. However, I would very much like to be unblocked so I can make constructive edits to Wikipedia. In the article "Rape (county subdivision)" , I admit I did change every mentioning of Sussex to Buttsex and Kent to Cunt, which, at the time, I found humorous. Though, through much reflection and utmost regret, I have learned that my churlish editing antics of the past are not appropriate for the Wikipedia community. One user, Mophedd, gave me a warning to not vandalize (which I immediately went against and willfully contributed more inaccurate information to the page, which I assume lead to my prompt and deserved blockage). I would be eternally grateful if the blockage would be undone. I assure Jimmy Wales himself that this will not happen again in any form. My actions were inexcusable, and I'm positive that any future edits made to any Wikipedia page will not only be relevant and inoffensive, but revelatory and possibly world changing (or at least Wikipedia changing for the better, guaranteed). My aspirations in educating the world are set high above the clouds, and I would like to be able to achieve them, only, it would require your help. Help the world and help Wikipedia, administrator Bongwarrior, you'll feel better for the rest of your days. Your's truly, aathies
Decline reason:
No thanks. We have plenty of vandals; we don't need more, and we certainly don't need to reward them. --jpgordon::==( o ) 08:34, 9 July 2014 (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.
Aathies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear jpgordon, My vandalism on the page "Rape (county subdivision)" was wrong, as I have already stated, and I fully understand that. I would truly like to contribute to the Wikipedia community to improve articles that I can, but I remain blocked. In my last appeal, I first read thoroughly how to construct an effective appeal: I refrained from anger, threats, talk of legal action, insults to the administrators, etc., but obviously it was not convincing enough to have my indefinite block lifted. To label my account a "Vandalism-only" account is jumping the gun, really. As you do not know me, and I do not know you, I fully understand why the block was implemented (because my edits were offensive and irrelevant), however, I believe it was in error to immediately block me. I would be grateful if the block were lifted so I can appropriately contribute to Wikipedia as an editor. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Aathies Aathies (talk) 4:52 am, Today (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
And other than a block preventing you from amusing yourself, what exactly has changed in the 48hrs since you claimed your edits were accurate and exceedingly helpful? It's pushing the boundaries of reason to believe you've sponaneously done a complete about-face and suddenly become a productive member of the community. Try again in six months when you've grown up a little and you might be granted another chance, until then - not going to happen. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 10 July 2014 (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.
Aathies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Am I wrong in saying that the user blocks are not to be punitive? It is against Wikipedia policy to instate a block solely for punitive reasons, and what I can deduce from Yunshui telling me to "grow up a little" , he did not lift the block because he sees this as punishment. I have been nothing but mature and logical since my block has been put in place, which is more than enough convincing proof that I can be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. These edits to my talk page are not vandalism (Mophedd), they are honest attempts to show administrators that I am neither a vandal nor a troll, as I have clearly been labelled. And I can tell you, Yunshui, that what has changed in the last 48 hours since I posted that sarcastic comment on Mophedd's talk page is that I've realized that what I did was wrong and I shouldn't have done it in the first place. To keep a first-time user indefinitely blocked is unjust and weakens the Wikipedia community as a whole. Wikipedia was made to collect knowledge from millions of individuals (with sources, of course), and to indefinitely block a user after a single group of unhelpful edits on a single page is counterintuitive to the idea of Wikipedia. As I have said before, I realize what I did wrong and I apologize for my actions. I, like any sapient creature, realize that my edits were anything but helpful. Is a third, honest attempt at having my block lifted enough for the administrators to realize that I can be a productive member of the Wikipedia community? Again, I understand why the block was put in place, but having it be indefinite is wrong. I've refrained from anger, calling legal action, threats, insults, and anything that would compromise my block being lifted. If I were truly a vandal or a troll, these would all be sarcastic and offensive, like any vandal or troll would have them be. I have not used my talk page to further my past vandalism (Mophedd), I've only used it only to attempt to represent myself in the best and most appropriate way I can. So to the next uninvolved administrator to read my plea(s), truly consider what I've said. Thank you. Aathies (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
your block is not punitive, it is preventative. And, as you have already been told, we do not need any more vandals here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:45, 10 July 2014 (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.
Aathies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting that my block be changed from indefinite to a lesser period of time. Aathies (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One open request at a time, please (besides, this one has been superseded by the request below). — Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2014 (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.
Why would we decrease the period of time? Take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Origamiteis out right now 18:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Aathies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decreasing the amount of time I am blocked for is sensible because I'm a first time user who made a mistake. I'm not saying to lift the entire block so I can edit freely immediately, but an amount of time of one month or even two weeks makes more sense than an entire six months. And as I cannot explicitly show administrators how helpful I could be to the Wikipedia community without editing articles I would like to make edits to, the only way to do that would be to responsible accept a block, but not an indefinite one. The indefinite block is harsh and inappropriate for a first-time offender, as is the Standard Offer. I made my account not as a vandalism-only account, but as a legitimate Wikipedia editor's account. I just happened to make a mistake that I am attempting to atone for. I would like to establish trust again, but I don't know how to do that other than showing that I can be a productive editor, which I cannot at this time. I would like to work in the Sandbox and practice my editing skills so I could show administrators that I would be a good editor when it comes time to actually edit articles. And if, when I submit this appeal, the previous appeals get messed up like they were before, could someone fix that? Because I don't quite know how to. Thanks. Aathies (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No thank you. Your only edits were indeed child-like vandalism and trolling. Your expression of intent in your only pre-block comment makes it clear that either you are incapable of discerning the disruptive nature of your "contributions", or, as you claim, that you are "sarcastic". That being the case, there is no way to determine if you are being sincere in your request, or if it is simply more "sarcasm". As we've wasted too much time with this and the requests seem to be simply repeating the same nonsense, I've locked the page. Kuru (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2014 (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.
To [Mophedd] :My talk page is my talk page and I do not intend on using it to further any vandalism. Don't try to restrict me even more just because you don't like me. That's very unprofessional. Nice try. Aathies (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- To Aathies, you are correct. Your talk page is your own. So is mine, however. That's why I removed YOUR comment from MY talk page. A quick glance at the page history will confirm this. I sincerely hope this clears up any confusion. Cheers, Mophedd (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Mophedd, yes, I really don't care that you removed my comment because it was sarcastic. There was no confusion. I just felt like you needed to know that your self-righteousness in monitoring my page for potential vandalism is unneeded, unless you like wasting your time. Go ahead and continue to get off on attempting to block me from editing my own page. I'm doing nothing wrong on here. Keep to yourself, bud. Aathies (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- To Aathies, In no way am I attempting to block you from editing your own talk page. I don't have the desire or authority. Nor have I seen you vandalize your own talk page. Your page is on my watchlist because I edited it, pure and simple. That being said, I didn't block you, I simply reverted your vandalizing edits to an article (your FIRST 14), warned you (twice), and requested page protection (as my contribs will confirm). Trying to blame me won't work, considering that page histories are there for all to see. BTW, you accused me of "restricting" you (whatever that means) BEFORE I made this comment and the one above. That doesn't parse. Mophedd (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Mophedd, you requested that my talk page be semi-protected because you say I am "only using it to further [my] vandalism". What can one deduce from that other than you trying to have me unable to edit my own talk page (which is completely inappropriate)? I know you don't have the authority, as you shouldn't, but evidence of desire is there, and that is why I am a bit miffed at you. And restricting means, in the context I used it, that you are attempting to restrict me from editing my own talk page through a higher authority, as I said before. And I am aware you didn't block me, Bongwarrior did. My main point is that you claimed that I am only using my talk page to continue vandalizing, which is completely absurd to even consider. Please, when you make a claim, actually have it be true and provable. Aathies (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- To Aathies, my apologies. Looking again, I did send a request for page protection for your user talk. Perhaps I was wrong or hasty to do that (I WAS a bit angry). For what it's worth, I'm sorry. Mophedd (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Mophedd, well, all apologies are acceptable, at least in this matter. Don't contact me again.
To Daniel Case: My apologies for two appeals open at once, but I would still like the one below the superseding one reviewed, as I am still making a very honest and true attempt at proving myself a helpful member of the Wikipedia community.