User talk:Digana

Juana Inés de la Cruz[edit]

Nothing to do with me as such; I was simply reverting a deletion of references by a random IP with no reason given. I have no knowledge or interest in the subject, I was just reverting what I saw as possible deletion-vandalism. HalfShadow 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TI Keys[edit]

Attempts to circumvent the action the WMF office has taken will be met with the same response; reversion, suppression, and blocking. Mentioning that the keys have been reposted should be ok, however the article we have should not be part of a breadcrumb link trail to the keys - regardless of the length of the trail. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you bothered to ask me this question when you'd already posted the domain at which the keys are posted to the article. I've requested that oversight remove these revisions, and want to make it very clear that circumvention of an OFFICE action can and will result in a block of indefinite length. The information you posted makes finding the keys extremely easy. Please avoid editing this article. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "be bold", they say. Can I restore my edits without putting the domain name? I'll try to figure out another way to identify that person who reposted the keys; they did so kinda anonymously. Swap (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold does not apply when there are legal issues involved. Please do not edit this article further. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, can I ask a friend to do so for me, instructing them to be careful to not mention the domain name nor any information other than a vague indication that the keys are available again online, somewhere? Swap (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. We can't stop someone from looking it up online, but we don't need to actually mention that fact. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "needing", we don't need an article at all, but the article is certainly outdated as it is, since it doesn't mention that TI didn't respond to the counter-claim and that someone reposted the keys. Swap (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion as confirmed by checkuser with intent of circumventing an WP:OFFICE action. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:45, 3 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand I'm being blocked because I logged in to this account when the anonymous IP account got blocked and I tried again from this account, without providing a direct link as I understood from the talk page mentioned in the discussion above. I thought that mentioning the domain on which the link was found would not constitute a link to the offending material, and I admit it was an oversight to login to get around the IP block. I simply did not think things through. As it stands, however, the article in question is outdated, and I believe it can be updated without violating the Office decision. The article should state that the keys have been reposted online since and that TI did not respond to the DMCA counter-claim, without providing any further information to the reader on how to find the keys. I will not attempt again to circumvent an Office decision, but to work within its parameters. If any mention of the keys being available online is sufficient to violate the Office decision, I will not attempt again to make the article mention their online existence again.

Decline reason:

I'd be willing to consider asking for an unblock, but your evasion of a previous block doesn't leave me inclined to assume enough good faith to even offer that option. Blueboy 96 22:52, 3 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry, it was an oversight to get around the block by logging in. I didn't put much thought to it. Right now, I'd like to fix the Hierarchical RBF which needs some serious copy editing. I will not add any further links or indications on how to find the numbers to the TI article.

Decline reason:

If you have been blocked as a result of office actions, then you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation to appeal. Please do not continue to post {{unblock}} notices. 01:35, 12 March 2010 (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.