User talk:Farmertedmustgo

Welcome!

Hello, Farmertedmustgo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Agrizoophobia, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! v/r - T P 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Agrizoophobia[edit]

The article Agrizoophobia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article should be created on Wiktionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. v/r - T P 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Agrizoophobia[edit]

The article Agrizoophobia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article should be created on Wiktionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MattGiuca (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:MattGiuca, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2010 (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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:35, 15 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Gogo Dodo has something personal against me, and I feel this block is an unprofessional manifestation of a deep set desire to exert power over me. Farmertedmustgo (talk) 4:08 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 21:17, 15 December 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).

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

Request reason:

It has become highly evident that the neutrality of the reviewing parties should absolutely be called into question. There has been a constant ambush at every attempt I have made to contribute to the intellectual community via this site. The stimulation I have offered the worldwide community through intesnse research and articulation should not be denied due to the power-hungry nature of a handful of administrator. I challenge Jimmy Whales of Wikipedia to review his policies regarding administrative rights and request that Gogo Dodo resign immediately. Farmertedmustgo (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request indicates that you do not understand what kinds of edits might be useful in an encyclopedia, and have no plans for editing differently in the future. Therefore, I have no grounds for overturning this block. Since you were actively vandalizing Gogo Dodo's talk page, a block was absolutely inevitable, as even a child would have realized- you made a choice to be blocked when you did that. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 16 December 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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Two things. 1) You're not currently blocked, so this template does not apply to you. 2) You are edging dangerously close to getting blocked again. Consider this a final warning - further disruptive editing like the kind below will lead to another block. TN X Man 15:20, 16 December 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).

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

Request reason:

This reaction is absurd. The "blatant vandalism" on Gogo Dodo's wall was a simple response for unnecessary and excessive editing on my article covering agrizoophobia. It was nothing more than a playful joust aimed at showing the sillyness of altering another person's work. Even a child could connect this sort of obvious symbolism. I propose that an IQ test be administered prior to handing out admin rights on this site.

Farmertedmustgo (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're already unblocked. Stop asking to be unblocked when you're not actually blocked. There is no possible circumstance in which your unblock request would be successful, since you're not actually blocked. See also below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:45, 16 December 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.

In my opinion, you should read the response to your request more carefully. Are you sure your current actions are likely to lead to your desired goals? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your request - and ask that you please stop posting unblock requests; you're not currently blocked. Also, you note that you're concerned about "unnecessary and excessive editing on my article covering agrizoophobia" (Emphasis mine). The article is not yours - see WP:OWN - it's wikipedia's. You've contributed to it, for which we thank you, but the instant you click the "Save Page" button, your text becomes freely editable by anyone, without requirement or need to get your permission. If you do not want your work mercilessly edited by anyone on the internet, anywhere, then don't submit it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked again now ...

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing, specifically posting trollish unblock requests while not actually blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I think it would be a good idea to revoke talk page access as well. So I'm doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the proportion of your edits which are pure vandalism, you are lucky to have such a short block. I strongly suggest that you think carefully about taking a more constructive line once your block expires, otherwise there is a good chance you will be blocked for much longer, perhaps even indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it's a bit more complicated than that. I'll extend the block to two weeks since it now covers the socking. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done

And with another account appearing, I have reset the block to indefinite. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]