User talk:Goodlief

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't edit anything besides this talk page after MONGO's 07:20 message. There are no good reasons why I am blocked. The first reply is a last warning. This is entirely unfair. Because I registered yesterday is a reason? Huh?

Decline reason:

This looks valid, yes it is because you are new, and have not made constructive edits yet. Accounts that only cause disruption are often indef blocked without warning, so 48 hours is not that bad. -- HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:07, 8 December 2006 (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.

Regarding your edit to Humour:

Your recent edit to Humour (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism or link spam to the page. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 06:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this issue was solved; the bot was wrong.Goodlief

Last warning

Look at that-- the first reply is a last warning...

If you re-add comments to RfC's and not to the relevant page, I will block you -- Samir धर्म 07:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLease stop being disruptive or we will have to block you from editing.--MONGO 07:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That person, Samir, keeps reverting and deleting my posts. Who do I contact?

Then he blocks his page because he doesn't want to talk. What can I do about this?Goodlief

You can stop being disruptive..that would be a start.--MONGO 07:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you cannot delete my signature.Goodlief

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --MONGO 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't talk to you since I can't edit your talk page. Stop deleting my signature, ok. Goodlief

Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hours for trolling WP:RFC and for harassment on user talk pages. Your block is up for review on WP:ANI -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even edit anything besides this talk page after "The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --MONGO 07:20, 7" Goodlief

It's really quite simple, Goodlief. If you stop editing RfC's you have no idea about, stop commenting in an inflammatory fashion on RfC's that you admittedly didn't read and stop reverting the edits of administrators charged with the upkeep of these pages, I'll unblock you -- Samir धर्म 07:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I try talking to you the first time, but you won't let me. Fine, tell me what are "inflammatory" and I'll talk to you on your talk page, if you don't block it. I won't edit the RFC until we finish talking, ok?Goodlief Need answer please

You also didn't explain anything and kept reverting me for nothing. Goodlief

Are you there? I can't edit your talk page...Goodlief

Okay. First, why did you add this comment: [1] when you didn't read the RfC? -- Samir धर्म 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it very quickly but it was "not neutral at all" so I wrote that. Is that bad? It's true. I agreed with the first two outside views. Is that wrong?

It is an "Outside View." What is wrong with that? I don't understand...Goodlief I don't get it. What did I do...Goodlief

RfC's are a very serious part of our dispute resolution process. That particular dispute that you commented on is on going, and even getting it to the RfC process was a challenge. It's important to read through the RfC if you are going to comment, because suggesting that the RfC is not neutral and that the parties should just kiss and make up isn't really helping the situation -- Samir धर्म 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC was horrible. They were warring with each other. That is not what a RFC is for. Why can't they settle whatever petty differences they have instead of blowing it into the public? Goodlief

But I think it does... can I not have a thought?Goodlief The fact is that it is not neutral and that I think "the parties should just kiss and make up" because it "really [does] help the situation."Goodlief

But you see, you haven't even sorted through the issues, and admittedly so. You can't just barge onto RfC, call an RfC non-neutral and tell people they have to just make up. I think that just disrupts and dosen't help the process -- Samir धर्म 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, I'm trying to understand you but it's difficult. The issues was not laid out plainly. They were, for the most part, attacking each other. I didn't "barge" into anything. I just wanted to state my outside views. If I had known it would cause all this trouble, I'd had rethink it. But the thing is, it shouldn't be causing any problems... Goodlief

And you didn't tell me that you thought it "just disrupts." You call me a troll and reverted without any explanation. How am I suppose to respond? Goodlief

Just registered today, yet mainly interested in vandalizing numerous Rfc's...that's disruption. I recommend you take the next two days off, and if after that you make proper adjustments, you won't get blocked again.--MONGO 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say I am "vandalizing numerous Rfc'"?Goodlief Oh yea, and I didn't just register today.Goodlief And you reverted the humor page for no reason. I megered them the other day so I have no clue why you reverted...Goodlief

Need answer please

Second question

Bottom line: you have to read an RfC before commenting on it. Now, why did you revert my edits to upkeep these pages? Part of the job of administrators is to ensure RfC's follow rules. But instead, you just kept on reverting what I was doing. Why? -- Samir धर्म 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my comments and you were the one that reverted me. I don't know why you did it. So I talked to you on your talk page, but you never explained it to me.

Also, the thing on the WP:ANI is unfair. Can't I even get a chance to say something on there?Goodlief

Okay, I'll ask again. You just registered yesterday. Why did you revert actions taken by administrators to upkeep the RfC pages -- Samir धर्म 08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were not suppose to deleted my posts. Why did you reverted my posts? Need answer please For example, why are is the humor page being changed?Goodlief

I answered all your questions. Can you answer some of those up there...? Need answer please

Humor and Humour are spelt differently, as one can see..hence the reason for the reversion. It depends on where one learns their English. Shopwing up at multiple Rfc's on your first day of registering and posting as you did is disruption. I can see no reaosn to unblock you since the block is only for two days and all of your edits have been questionable.--MONGO 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explain what is questionable about it.

The MOS says humor. They are both the same article so it should be mergered. Because they are spelt differently is not a reason for reversion. Follow the rules.. read the MOS.. Goodlief

If you had an issue with it, why didn't you talk to me?

Looks like Samir has taken care of it...see you in two days.--MONGO 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is wrong with Humor and Humour that is questionable? Please

WoW, the inside of Wikipedia is horrible. I'll stay on the outside and just use it instead...

I can't speak for your actions, but it appears that the system has failed you with regards to the due process that should exist. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your endorsements to RfCs

When you add your endorsement or add a comment, you're not supposed to delete endorsements or comments by other people. You did that on at least two RfC pages. You know very well you did it. TheQuandry 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]