User talk:Easter rising

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by KnowledgeOfSelf for the following reason (see our blocking policy): blocked vandal switching ip Your IP address is 131.137.245.197

I have NO IDEA what I was blocked for. An explanation of some sort with be VERY helpfull.

• You weren't blocked. You're IP address is used by more than one editor. One person using it was using it for vandalism so it was blocked. You were hit by collateral damage from this. The block has now been lifted and, in theory, you should be able to edit freely again. Hope this helps. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm just tried to write you (User:Redvers) a thank-you note, but I am still somehow blocked. I have writen an email to the person who blocked me, but he doesn't seem to want to write me back, despite being online at the time. This is just weird...Easter rising 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've tried again. This might work - you'll have to do an edit and see. Writing to KnowledgeOfSelf probably won't help - he didn't block you - you've been caught in some collateral damage from a block to someone else. There's nothing he can do about that - it just needs a bit of detective work to sort it out. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, I do understand he didn't block me directly... but one would think that he would unblock me once I explained the situation. He seems to be on a blocking rampage without following up on, or explaining his actions... Easter rising 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Worked! Thanks again! Easter rising 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not as simple as you may think. The process for unblocking collateral damage can take hours to sort out - there are privacy issues that mean admins don't see the full picture, so we have to do detective work, hunt-and-peck unblocks, guesses... it's all long, complex and drawn out. But it doesn't look like that at first - he'll have done what I did, undone the original block. He'd have no way of knowing that wouldn't work. Neither did I. There was no blocking rampage, nothing personal was meant by it, no Wikipedia rules were broken, nothing out of the ordinary happened. However, I'm genuinely sorry you suffered as a result. Glad it now works for you! ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm aprantly no where nea as simple as I thought. Weird. I wasn't upset, just very confused about the block. I'm sure no rules were broken, its just an unfortunate, and annoying situation. Anyways, thanks again! (For the third of fourth time!)Easter rising 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had a minor mishap that completely tore me away from the computer, and I didn't check my email until just now. I'm sorry you were blocked for a short while, I assure you it was nothing personal. :) Glad it is all sorted out. KOS | talk 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Keithism

I was pleasantly surprised by your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Keithism. Many times when an article is nominated for deletion a lot of vitriolic comments get spewed around, often by the irate author of the article. Please know that I meant in no way to be rude. The article was written better than a fair share of what I've come across, alas the content is clearly not up to par with WP:NOT.

Don't take this personally and don't be discouraged to create and edit future articles. Please don't repost this one, however, unless you can provide greater evidence of notability from verifiable and reliable sources, without straying into original research.

I'd suggest: take a screenshot of this page before it gets deleted. Then just show that to your friends. Thanks! -- Scientizzle 00:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that you can also "userfy" the article by copying the content into User:Easter rising/Alexander Keithism, or something similar. Anything under User:Easter rising is not subject to the usual notability requirements, etc. best, bikeable (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for questioning the ban on User:Sussexman, who has done some sterling work on Wikipedia. Because he gave his absolute support to an old collegue who was a hate figure for a small group of left-wingers, they simply banned him on very flimsy allegations. 81.131.24.254 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anittas

I saw your comments on Xed's talk page and wanted to let you know that I am open for a discussion about that particular block. Suffice to say: this user was already on strong probation for posting homophobic personal attacks on another user. After he posted another offensive attack, I blocked him. We had an email discussion about it, and I was prepared to unblock him, when he indicated another offensive picture he would like to post, and I said to him, in essence, look, I do not think this is going to work out, and he agreed, and that ended it.

Wikipedia is not a free speech zone. It is a serious effort to write a high quality encyclopedia, and it is important for us to realize and repeat often that not everyone really deserves to be part of such an effort. People pushing offensive agendas, and making vile attacks on other users, should be first gently asked to stop, and then banned from the project. This has always been our policy, and it has worked well.

There is a delicate balance between tolerance of diversity and dissent, and losing good contributors when vicious trolls are allowed to prey on innocent victims.--Jimbo Wales 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)