User talk:Feddhicks

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).

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

---

Request reason:

adminis block in order to gain advantage in edit dispute, he even wrote "blocked. I'd do it myself if not for my involvement in this discussion" but now is doing it" If you unblock, I will discuss it with you. He doesn't like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama.. I am a productive editor, creating Astronaut article and others

Decline reason:

Block was justified. — User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:04, 11 July 2007 (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.

Causing trouble

Huh? Who is fanning flames? Rezko is a topic that's been covered a multitude of times on the article, so some of the regulars are a little testy about it. As for the rewrite, the whole point of an RFC is to not influence the opinion of the commenters before they arrive at the talk page, so I removed some of the POV from your addition. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On the general scheme of things the content that is in dispute is minor in comparison to the rest of the article. At any point in time most featured articles will have some questions of POV, particularly those related to high visibility subjects. If every FA came up for a FAR every time there was a bone of contention over minor content then there'd never be an end to FARs and the process would be useless. As such, FAR should only be used if there are entire sections that are POV. As far as the tone of the debate, the sockpuppet accusations have been unfortunate and are somewhat distracting while they remain unresolved, but you share part of the blame for the level of intensity that. You've escalated this content dispute far too fast. You submitted the RFC within 2 hours of initially making the Rezko edit and a little over an hour after Tvoz reverted your change and you just started a WP:FAR within 2 days over a very minor issue. All in all, even if you aren't a sockpuppet (which I'm not saying you are), your actions in the last 2 days have been rather disruptive due to the speed and manner in which you're pushing to get your opinion included.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not sure it's possible to put the genie back into the bottle now. I was too quick in removing your FAR notice as you hadn't completed the FAR request yet, so when I checked your edit history and the history of the FAR page there was no evidence that you were going any further than throwing the template up. So once you had completed the FAR page and put it on WP:FAR the notice was rightfully re-applied. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude.. WTF is up with this warning? I explained it in the above comment. SandyGeorgia just added it back before I could after I noticed you had actually created the FAR. You want us to assume good faith for you and then you pull stupid crap like this? Heh. Seriously.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, but

thanks for the FYI on obama, but please add messages to my talk page versus my user page next time. Thanks! MPS 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks

As I said before, I was willing to drop the whole thing. But now you're back with another sockpuppet. Why can't you just stick to one account? Drop the ruse, stick to one account, and I'll be happy to let it go. · jersyko talk 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x

As you are an obvious sockpuppet of Dereks1x, and because Dereks1x is under a community ban per WP:CN, I have blocked you indefinitely. · jersyko talk 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

. . .and to stave off any concern regarding the fact that I'm involved in a discussion at the Obama FAR, note that I have requested review of the block at the administrator's noticeboard. · jersyko talk 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, an open letter to 3 of you

To Feddhicks - Jersyko and Bobblehead have also written harsh messages to me so I occasionally see what they are up to. I see that Jersyko has blocked you which results in him gaining advantage in an ongoing discussion/dispute.

I am willing to consider, but not guarantee, your suggestions for articles. I will not be a proxy and put your edits in articles for you, but if you see a good link, e-mail me (awikiuser at hot mail, rarely checked) and I might incorporate the link with my own editing ideas. A warning, though, I am not particularly interested in Mr. Obama, unless you can point to some Singapore related issues, such as a visit there to see the President or Minister Mentor. I am more interested in the Danish official, Mr. Schmidt.

To Jersyko, Bobblehead, and Feddhicks - I am willing to consider an informally mediate resolution of this dispute. I have previously successfully informally mediated disputes such as in Missouri, Gibraltar, and a few others. I have so far never been unsuccessful in bringing a dispute to a resolution.

If any of the parties does not want to mediate, I won't push the idea any further because I am only interested in facilitating agreement, not forcing it. VK35 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I put this 7 in case you don't want me and want someone else. If you want neither, just put "disagree" and the matter will be closed. Again, I am only interested in facilitating agreement, not forcing it.VK35 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC).