User talk:Evenin' scrot!

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Evenin' scrot!, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Message

Hello, Evenin' scrot!. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court edit

The reference you removed was a web citation, linking to a copy of the text of the Constitution. You replaced it with a footnote that merely invoked the Constitution; surely you agree that the former is slightly better than the latter? As to the "name". If you look at the wikicode, the citation that you had removed was declared by writing <ref name="constitution">. When you do that, you give the citation a "name"; if you later want to make a footnote reference to the same item, then you would only need to do <ref name="constitution"/>, and this would generate a footnote with the same number as the original, and the footnote would have multiple links back (one to every time it was referenced). If you remove a reference, it is important to make sure you are not messing up other parts of the article that may refer to it again. If a reference is declared with a "name" as this one was, that just increases the chances that there could be other parts of the article that link to that reference (I hasten to add it was not the case here, but it is still an occupational hazard). That means that you should have been doubly careful when you removed that reference and replaced it with something else. In fact, since you were referencing the same thing and only objected to the positioning of the reference, the best solution would have been to simply cut-n-paste (move) the reference code to the location within the sentence that you believed appropriate. That is what I did eventually by replacing your citation code with the old one, at the new location. I hope that clarifies what I meant. PS Remember to sign your comments in talk pages (including User talk pages) with ~~~~. By the way, if you type that directly, you immediately get the signature; if you want a control sequence such as the four tildes to show up, you enclose it in <nowiki>...</nowiki> so it is not "interpreted". Magidin (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Hi. I reverted your edit because the edit summary for this edit ("changed improper proletariat misconception that federal judges are appointed to office 'for life"; correct term, printed quite clearly in the constitution, is that of "good behavior".) is somewhat snarky. Please use more collegial edit summaries in future. Since you've reverted it back, please provide a specific cite for the "good behaviour" phrasing ("the constitution" is not specific enough). I've raised this issue on the talk of the article, probably best to address it there. ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did it again... I have reverted this. Take this to the talk, as I suggested in April. Also, why are you adding an address to your user page. Unless you're prepared to prove it is actually where you live, it's probably not appropriate to be there... ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar,

I am not really sure what your problem is or why you are picking on me with such random or trivial requests about banalities. With respect to the "address" on my page, which somehow bothers you: there is currently an affidavit on file at the Maricopa County Recorder's Office of which you may obtain some "proof" of my ownership of the property, if you in fact require this for some strange reason.

With respect to the Supreme Court article edit, I highly suggest that you stay out of matters you know nothing about. It is obvious from your revisions to the Associate Justice article, which lacks any reasoned consideration or support on the discussion page, that you have no idea what you are doing, but somehow feel insecure about my edits and have arbitrarily chosen to do what feels comfortable for you. I can understand actions only as a misguided concern for the integrity of wikipedia, but remain confused as to why the burden has been placed so high on me to support what is expressly written in the Constitution and cited to in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court. In any case, I have responded, as you have asked, on the discussion page for the Associate Justice article. I hope it satisfies your inquiry. If it remains insufficient to meet your standards, then I really don't know how else to help you.

username block

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Evenin' scrot!, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2008 (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).

Evenin' scrot! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I demand to know why this username has been blocked. Since I have begun editing Wikipedia, I have experienced nothing but negative interactions with the persons who claim to regulate it. First, over all matter of trivialities; now, over some bizarre idea, without any reasoning or support, that my username is offensive! This constant, arbitrary & negative harrassment is souring my opinion of Wikipedia and causing me to form similar opinions ofthe commmand structure within it. I demand to know why my user name has been blocked.

Decline reason:

This isn't really a request for unblock, but for information. I am not aware of any meaning of the word 'scrot' which is not related to the English word 'scrotum,' and most readers would read it that way, as well. The use of a body part which is generally considered private, especially in a form which seems to address the reader by that word, wouldn't be appropriate under our username rules, which don't allow us to have names that would reasonably be interpreted as vulgar or insulting. As you say, one reason we don't allow such names is that the negative reactions they cause in other editors make it difficult to edit successfully while using names of this kind. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (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.

Quite incorrect, with respect to scrot. Of course, I should only have expected to receive this offensive response, given the current nature of thought that abounds here; and I hesitate further to question exactly what state of mind you are in with respect to it. Scrot is in fact a software utility for screenshot applications, and one which I use extensively for cataloging movies and media from my linux-based machine (which I have built and am quite proud of). This is something of a hobby of mine (always has been when I have time off from work) as the image captures are ultimately designed for other collages and artistry which I have secured the appropriate copyrights to create. The fact that you supply your own definition for what might be an equivocal term, and then claim your definition is the right one, tramples on my understanding of understanding and respect. I'm sure that I could claim your name has some ridiculous second meaning, and then further presume to know your intent and claimed you meant to use the term in that fashion. This would be absurd and disrespectful, and may leave you feeling victimized by a wikipedian who took not the time to know you before endeavoring to tell the world who he thinks you are.

There is a consensus that your username is disruptive and you won't be able to argue away from that. You can pick a new, neutral username. Would you like to do this? If so, what would that name be? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if this editor has had unhappy reactions from others it could easily have had at least something to do with the username. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my complaint was quite the converse, that I am unhappy with the actions of others, not that others might have some "unhappy reaction" to me. Of course, I do not expect you to understand the difference, as I notice from your user page and history that your primary concern is filling some sort of quota of wikipedians you have kicked off or restrained from editing. Again, you fit neatly into the category of other wikipedians with authority, with the exception of a distinct few whom I now greatly admire for valuable insight, sound judgment or at least sound reasons before hastening to act.Evenin' scrot! (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that setting up WP:SOCKs called Mornin' scrot! (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Harry Balzagna (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (both of which have been blocked) is not likely to be viewed as a constructive approach either. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, those would be violations of the username rules for the same reason. If you'd like to change your username, see if you can think of something that doesn't include any references to genitalia at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but nevertheless, they're socks (I ran checks, and so did Jpgordon) and have been tagged as such. The appropriate way to seek a new name is to ask here for guidance, and then commit to a rename, followed by a trip to WP:CHU, rather than to sock to evade a block. Abandoning an account and starting over is fine but don't sock to do it. State your intentions. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I thought I was agreeing with you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... :) meanwhile, I thought I was agreeing with you. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! I guess that means we agree! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material

Evenin'... you're currently indef blocked. Don't remove content again, or your talk page may be locked so you can't use it. This material is not just for you, it's for the benefit of any admins who may be contemplating removing your block. You can archive if and when you are unblocked. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you. I prefer to remove it now. Evenin' scrot! (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait. Would you like another user name or not? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lar, I am not entitled to one. I have given up; I feel like my contributions or presence is not appreciated here on Wiki.Evenin' scrot! (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken about what Lar said. You can pick a neutral user name. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. How, exactly is my user name not neutral? I have just done some quick research to try and prove my case, but am exhausted from arguing with you all. Simply typing "scrot" into a search engine yields less than 20% of hits containing the slang meaning which you claim most people attribute. Yet I am being assailed under the theory that some strange vulgar meaning, which you have chosen to attribute is in fact the meaning attached to my name. This is severely undermining my lack of trust in Wikipedia as a community. I refuse to respond further until everyone has taken some time to cool off, step back, and evaluate exactly what is going on here. Also, I will be contacting other "admins" who have actually demonstrated some reasoned judgment in the past to evaluate this situation. This is absolutely ridiculous.Evenin' scrot! (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told why scrot is disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is not appropriate. I've protected this page from editing. Your contribution history is short, so if you wish to create a new account with a neutral username, please do. Accounts with inappropriate names will be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as it turns out, ES has one already... Supervox2113 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)... which ES should feel free to continue using, as its name is just fine under our guidelines. There's no need to unblock this one. I'll retag the socks. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]