User talk:Exobiologist

This is the discussion page for exobiologist. Please post any messages for me here and I will attempt to respond to them as quickly as I'm able. Thankyou. Exobiologist (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Universe Today. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame quacker or whatever it calls itself. He is the one continuously reverting material. I am merely fixing his vandalism. Exobiologist (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Universe Today. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are patrolling the page for its owner. It is blatant spam and you are doing wikipedia a disservice by protecting it. I have called upon the arbitration commitee to deal with this. As a regular contributor to the page you are obviously biased and should be ashamed of your actions. Exobiologist (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calabe1992 (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he allowed to make continuous reverts and I'm not? This is ridiculously unfair.Exobiologist (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exobiologist. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. DMacks (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me put in a formal request meeting your standards. I'm new here but this page is an obvious attempt to draw visitors by one or more site owners. Exobiologist (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like for an article to be deleted, WP:AFD is the process. The page does not meet any of the intentionally narrow/specifically-limited cases for speedy-deletion. Beyond that, the talk-page definitely is not speedy-deletable as long as the article itself exists (the whole point of a talk-page is to be a record of discussions about the article content). Note I'm not passing judgment on the validity of your concerns, just that the process requires more editors' eyes and discussion than "one editor thinks it's bad, then insta-delete" for this one. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Courcelles 04:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What disgustingly obvious bias. They reverted more than I did. Enjoy your Cabal. Exobiologist (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

My accusers reverted my legitimate deletion nomination more than 3 times themselves so should be banned also. They are all working together or the same person. I suspect Fraser Cain the owner of Universe Today as he enjoys posting at wikipedia under various aliases Exobiologist (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. When your block for your actions has expired, you are welcome to raise your concerns about others in an appropriate place and/or pursue article deletion according to the process that has been pointed out to you rather than edit-warring and refusing to follow the process that is exactly tailored to get input from uninvolved other editors. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is bullshit. I have never used the name universe daily. The people supporting the page are all active members of universe today. They started the edit war and took turns keeping it going. They patrol the page. Its insane. Ofcourse I put Universe Today up for deletion. Anyone can see its spam. I stand by all my remarks. Go read their articles. They are amateurish at best. Why am I banned? Fraser Cain should be banned for spamming with his page dedicated to promoting his lame website. The universe today page is now on its third nomination for deletion. Somebody else put in a nomination using fancy schmancey words and it was accepted. Is that how you keep control over this encyclopedia? By adding so many rules that everybody gets dizzy trying to jump through all the hoops necessary to get anything done? I nominate the page for deletion and get banned but somebody else nominates that pile of crap for deletion and it gets discussed. What a joke! If this is how wikipedia operates then I predict it dying a slow terrible death. Nothing else jimmy wales has ever done has worked out. Wikipedia is just too big and stupid to realise its collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit.

Decline reason:

Checkuser has confirmed that this account is a sockpuppet of Universe Daily (talk). Any unblock request should be made from that account. As its talk page access has been revoked, request should be made by email to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (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.

Checkuser has you pretty much dead-to-rights here. You're not going to be able to beat what amounts to a bloody fingerprint on a murder weapon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is wrong. This is a public library. If you don't know what a public library is then look it up in wikipedia. This place is full of computers. What fingerprint? What murder weapon? Talking gibberish doesn't make you right. All I did was nominate Universe Today for deletion. It is now nominated for deletion by someone else. Did he get banned? No. Exobiologist (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for 24 hours from the 8th August. Read above. That time has expired. Exobiologist (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are banned indefinitely because you have created another account to abusively pursue a single purpose. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail is now revoked due to legal threats. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]