Jump to content

User talk:Infamia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Infamia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do I get my article into the encyclopedia and out of draft?Infamia (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of people pardoned by Donald Trump (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
WP:TOOSOON A list isn't a list if it only includes one item.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Infamia, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of people pardoned by Donald Trump (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Again, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Just resubmitting it isn't going to change that.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You also should have allowed someone else to review it rather than just turning it down again. The topic is obviously notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Sorry to say, you're simply wrong and you're citation of WP:Too Soon is not even remotely on point. (Nor is it true that a list cannot only contain one item.) If you're going to decline an article, please use logical reasoning. There is no possible rational argument that WP:TooSoon applies here. Infamia (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Galobtter (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. He should be deterred from continuing to do a shitty job. He had no right to tell me my article failed WP: What Wikipedia is not, which was obviously false. (Note that he knew his claim was bullshit, since he failed to answer which item on WP: What Wikipedia is not actually applied, and so was just being a jerk. He fails WP: Competence is required. Infamia (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just resubmitted without changing anything or acknowledging his feedback. We don't have time to waste to explain things again and again. There's no need for a list as there is only one person. Also the draft is quite WP:COATRACK. Reads more like criticism of the pardon of joe arpaio. Galobtter (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"feedback"? you thought there was feedback? where?Infamia (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I just create my own article without submitting a draft to a reviewer who fails WP: Competence is required? I don't have time to deal with incompetent reviewers who clearly don't know how to read and who cite irrelevant policies. Infamia (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon of Joe Arpaio and your AFD creation

I think you might be confused somewhere. If you look at the edit history of the article you're trying to modify (Pardon of Joe Arpaio), all that happened was that someone created this page with a redirect to Joe Arpaio#Trump Presidential pardon. This particular article has not been deleted or created before in the past. Are you sure that you're referencing the proper page? What are you trying to do exactly? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wrote you on your page. The page was created as a redirect. Then I added my own content (which I had already created as a draft page) and removed the redirect. Then the other editor reverted me, and restored the redirect. I then reverted him, and stated that there should be a discussion as to whether the topic merited its own page, rather than his unilateral decision. As such, I self-nominated to insure there would be a discussion. When you reverted me, I think I accidentally thought you were him. I have no problem with there not being a discussion- I just wanted there to be a discussion rather than a de facto deletion through merger without any discussion, which is why I self-nominated, as I thought he was just going to keep reverting me otherwise. Infamia (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you were trying to accomplish. Lets resume this discussion on my talk page; I'll be happy to explain what you should do in this situation. I'll see you there... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of people pardoned by Donald Trump (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:
Two reasons:
  1. This is not a list. He's only pardoned one person.
  2. This fails WP:CRYSTAL as far as the "potential" pardons go, and WP:OR to boot.
Please do not resubmit this page until both points can be fixed.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Primefac (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pardon of Joe Arpaio

Is this page needed anymore? Can it be changed to redirect users to Pardon of Joe Arpaio now? We should generally keep only one location for the same article so that we don't complicate things by creating competing versions, updates, edit histories, and content revisions for the same article in two different locations. I suggest that we go ahead and redirect the draft to the article in the mainspace. Let me know if you have any objections or concerns so that I can address them. The principle of "the sooner, the better" is definitely key here, especially with this situation; resolving it manually is time-consuming and usually isn't done correctly. Thanks -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not needed anymore. After I submitted the draft article under that title for review, the other editor created the re-direct, and I added the content there, so the draft is now unnecessary. Infamia (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect; I've changed the draft to redirect users to the article on the mainspace. Thanks for getting back to me and letting me know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder on copying

When copying text from one wikipedia article to another, you have to provide attribution - see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Galobtter (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea of this. I will read the article. Infamia (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cautioning message

I know you may disagree with atsme on that edit. I also disagree. But you're not helping your case by reverts. There is no need for the article to be instantly restored to its previous state. If you revert too much, you may get blocked for WP:editwarring. I'm sure we can get a consensus for the statements to be restored, but it doesn't need to happen instantly. Galobtter (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He basically deleted 2/3 of the article and said "non-compliant." He's just trying to delete the article because he lost the deletion discussion. I don't even get what his problem is. Infamia (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*she Remember WP:3RR (see the exemptions there if you want to know what cases you can repeatedly revert) and this is sanctioned article so WP:1RR might apply not sure. You look to be engaged in an edit war that could get you blocked. Yes I'd like to restore the content, but you can at least wait a few hours. There is nothing so urgent here that means one cannot wait a bit. Or you can ask an admin whether the AfD means that the content cannot be removed. Galobtter (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and I'm trying to be calm about it, but my view here is that he can't use 1rr to delete nearly the entire article during an active deletion discussion. He's posted to Oswah's page to complain so I made my case there that he can't delete the entire article during a discussion, the consensus is strongly for keep, and he hasn't actually participated in the talk page discussion he wanted to have. Infamia (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do I have to do this again? As the competence is required essay says, "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." " So, if WP:COMPETENCE seems to apply to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so." "the primary purpose of this essay is not to present it to competence-lacking editors to let them know they are incompetent" You're essentially calling her incompetent. Galobtter (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your point in asking her (and sulfurboy) to read WP:COMPETENCE? It's meant to be quoted and linked in discussions of good faith editors inadvertently causing problems..not for giving a link for so called "incompetent" people to read. Galobtter (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was a little over the top, especially with Sulfurboy. But her edits below which I just noticed deeply troubled me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=810161728&oldid=810161546
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=809663502&oldid=809659332
In these edits, she claims (amongst other nonsense) that "we now KNOW that there was Russian interference to help CLINTON (!!!!) win the 2016 election": "Furthermore, the attention should be on the various investigations the dossier has triggered and actually resulted in evidence that support the allegations being made. We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier."
She also alleges that "using the President's name" in Trump-Russia dossier is "POV-laden."
I am having trouble seeing how someone who believes that we "know" that the Russians were aiding Clinton in the 2016 election can edit political pages. While I would like to assume good faith, I am having difficulty seeing how to do so, given that she is spreading obvious disinformation and seems to think using the President's name in a dossier about him is laden with point of view.Infamia (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier. ... However that just means that she will be regularly overriden by consensus. That's not grounds for essentially a WP:TOPICBAN unless she starts ignoring consensus or edit-warring about it (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). Behaviour is what matters. Its fine to express whatever (excluding racism etc) views on topics. Galobtter (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I hear you. I'll back off. She evidently didn't actually want to discuss her proposed deletions anyway. Infamia (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She's probably asleep lol. Galobtter (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. "I don't have time to deal with incompetent reviewers who clearly don't know how to read and who cite irrelevant policies." Natureium (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a personal "attack." We were discussing another editor, and I stated my grievance that said other editor had not read the page, and cited an irrelevant policy.Infamia (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
This edit was a unambiguous WP:PA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio_(2nd_nomination)&diff=810175194&oldid=810174647 Atsme📞📧 15:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is unambiguously not an "attack." I simply asked you to become informed about the topic prior to writing about it. Your edits indicated that you were unaware the article was not about Joe Arpaio, but was instead about the legal issues involving his pardon. You'll also note that the consensus was a landslide in my favor, and against you, indicating I was correct that you had not properly grasped the gravamen of the article. Infamia (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Unblock request: why am I 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).

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

Request reason:

WP: Cleanstart. Any old accounts are abandoned, and there was no simultaneous use of accounts or “sock puppetry”. Unblock should be made since blocks are made to protect the community—� blocks are not punishment— but the community needs no protection from a valued editor who just lovingly contributed an article which passed afD by overwhelming consensus of 13-2, and who has livened this place up with his wit, humuor, and abundance of sources. Forgiveness is the highest vietue.

Decline reason:

We'll start with the comment at the end by Sarek regarding WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, there's this. Midway through this discussion you suddenly changed your block appeal to mention CLEANSTART, after it was clear the rest of the discussion was not going your way (and removing others' comments in the process). Furthermore, this is a personal attack (and !vote-counting is not how AfD works, there are no "winners" or "losers" at XfD, and claiming it as some sort of trophy reflects very poorly on you.) I would suggest if you truly want to contribute to Wikipedia that you take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Note that if you make further personal attacks or disruptive behavior in requests for unblocking you're very likely to have your talk page access revoked. The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 14 November 2017 (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.

If there was a removal of any comments, it was accidentally done when I modified my block request per the suggestion of the user.I will check and restore the lost comments.
can you say more? I’ve not been told what i’ve been blocked for. I already said that I had used iP addresses before, so I’m not sure how that is a reason to block or abusing multiple accounts applies. Blocking admin has left no comment or explanation for his actions.Infamia (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls:, how can he grovel and beg forgiveness if there is no block notice? There is no reason mentioned here why the user was blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Modify your tone or you can have a discussion with yourself. Infamia, you were blocked for sockpuppetry. Blaming others and referring to circumstances that have no bearing on the sockpuppetry provide no basis for any unblock. Again, read the WP:GAB. Tiderolls 19:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Modify my tone? No. An unblock request is just that, making the user grovel for forgiveness. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t think signing up for an account after using an IP address is abuse of multiple accounts. Is it? Infamia (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The situation you describe is not sockpuppetry. You may ping the admin here to ask for clarification, however that may be frustrating because in some instances they are prevented by policy from sharing their results. You're better off rewording your unblock request addressing the block issue. Tiderolls 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there proof of the abuse? Was a CU done? Why isn't there a block notice here? It could very well be abuse, but how are we to know? Usually there is a link to the proof for a block, I don't think it's appropriate for an admin to just block on his say so, or without posting a notice and proof. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked the admin, Sir Joseph? Please, if your going to inject yourself make some effort to move the situation forward. Tiderolls 19:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really do need to check your own tone. And yes, I did ask the admin. Why not check out AN/I where this is being discussed? And you now tell him he's blocked for sockpuppetry. How was he supposed to know that for his unblock request? And if he's blocked for sockpuppetry, was a CU done? Where is the proof of his sockpuppetry? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on AN/I because I'm here attempting to advise the editor on how best to obtain unblock. As I said initially, this all advice. Tiderolls 19:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infamia, if I were you I'd ask this user to stop "advocating" for you. With friends like that, you don't need enemies. Joseph, a block for sockpuppetry does not require CU. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to insult me. I find your comment extremely unbecoming an admin and arbitrator. I'm not advocating for anyone. I just want transparency. JPG blocked this user but put no notice on this talk page and no reason or proof. How is this person supposed to accurately put in an unblock request when there is no reason for the block given? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked your question. What you think of my comment means nothing to me. Your block log speaks for itself, the operative word being "bludgeoning". Drmies (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for an admin to clarify is bludgeoning? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How are you even involved in this? I don't see anything wrong with their conduct as an admin. They've been entirely professional and explained the block. Natureium (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be frank Natureium: Aren’t you basically just upset because the community overwhelmingly agreed the article was a notable, exemplary contribution to the encylopedia, and rejected your views to the contrary (by a staggering margin of 13-2)? That’s no reason to be upset. Sometimes we are kist wrong, as you were unequivocally shown to be in the deletion discussion. That was no reason to go trolling for a revenge block. You lost, fair and square. Infamia (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
drmies, I’m not going to ask another iser to post or not post anything. He’s welcome to post what he likes , as far as I’m concerned.I don’t see a problem with his comments to begin with, and I find it unusual to say the least that you’d suggest another iser’s posts would somehow have any effect on my block. I didn’t engage in “sock puppetry”; I didn’t engage in “personal attacks” (I see plenty of sharply worded comments here without blocks). It seems to me the two editors who complained on me at AnI ar primarily upset that the community agreed with my criticisms of their views, (overwhelmingly, see the deletion discussion) and are seeking some pointless revenge-via-administrator by having me blocked. No, the administrator did not post an “explanation” at AnI (unless there is some new meaning of “explanation” that includes merely stating “user has been blocked.”)Infamia (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation was here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting a WP: Cleanstart, which should be honored. There was no sock puppetry, which implies the simultaneous use of multiple accounts. Those accounts are abandoned, as I elected a better name, and you will find no simultaneous use of accounts. In light of my valuable contribution to the community in the form of a new article that overwhelmingly passed AfD (12 votes to 2!!!!) it would seem its time to let bygones be bygones and unblock this account. Who can even remember what it is you’re all mad at me for to begin with? No one can. Forgoveness is the highest virtue. Infamia (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to actually read the rules in Wikipedia:Clean start and you'll discover that you've violated it. Your new account started just two days ago, and you already called attention to yourself and got reported at ANI. That's not what "clean start" is about. It's about doing things the right way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions ... may not have a clean start.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
can you cite me an example of a user who has received a WP:cleanstart? I find your interpretation to be against the spirit of the rule, where, as here, a valued contributor has just contributed an outstanding, notable article which overwhelmingly passed the consesnsus to keep (a 13-2 stampede of which I observe you yourself voted among the yeas). In light of these galuable contributions, committment to excellence, and the inability of anyone to recall why I was even blocked to begin with (blessed are the forgetful), can we not say that the spirit of cleanstart permits, nay reqquirws, an unblock be given here?
Just the opposite. WP:CLEANSTART says, "Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions ... may not have a clean start." This account was created on 12 November, immediately after the previous account, Peacebroker, was blocked. And this is just the most recent instance of this person creating additional accounts after being blocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And editing via IP after your block to continue your disruption will definitely lead to you NOT being unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Evil Sourceror (talk · contribs)
15:35, 9 November 2017 - created
06:08, 10 November 2017 - indef'd
Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)
18:02, 11 November 2017 - created
16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd
Edit Warrior for Truth (talk · contribs)
18:03, 11 November 2017 - created
00:39, 12 November 2017 - indef'd
Peacebroker (talk · contribs)
18:21, 11 November 2017 - created
08:04, 12 November 2017 - blocked for 48
20:13, 12 November 2017 - indef'd
Infamia (talk · contribs)
20:51, 12 November 2017 - created
16:01, 14 November 2017 - indef'd
Just FYI. I can't find the user "WarriorForTruth". Maybe a spelling variant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a misspelling, it's Warrior for Truth. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please drop the repeated "13-2 AfD" comments. That is not how AfD works. Please remember the first law of holes. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jpgordon, as much as I appreciate your attempt to do this without drama, it has--against your desire--led to some drama; note the überdramatic involvement of User:Sir Joseph. If this was meant as a CU block, it would have been good to note that, template and all; after all, if it is challenged it's going to be those poor, underpaid schmucks at ArbCom who have to deal with it. Don't you feel for them? I understand DENY, but maybe an SPI here wouldn't be a bad idea, or at least something in the log. Which was the first account? Widr, this "Sourceror" was already blocked for "multiple accounts"--who were the others? And Infamia, if it's not clear to you, it's abundantly clear to all other Wikipedia editors, I hope, that this cannot be a case of CLEANSTART. As Sarek said, ... well, look at the policy. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uberdrama? You just told him that he should have put a template while blocking, which is all I asked for. You really need to ease up with your incivility. I understand you have a problem with me, but you need to get off your high horse. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I did was not "Sock puppetry", which plainly implies the use of multiple accounts at once. I simply created a new account per a fair interpretation of the spirit of WP: cleanstart, and there was never any overlap in usage of any account, as is clearly shown above. And the prior account itself was merely blocked because I had use a previous account, rather than do to any deficiencies in my edits, which were of the highest caliber. Yet this blocking based on who the editor is, rather than on the edits themselves, seems to fall afoul of WP: Comment on Content, not Contributors. Does the source of the contribution, in the end, really matter? Here we depart, in that I have consistently maintained it does not, while your actions all say otherwise. You all claim the source of an edit matters not; and yet in practice, I've seen nearly all of you revert edits for the sole reason of who contributed them, rather than due to your assessment of their value. Is this not grossly against the very spirit and highest purpose of your much-cited rules and policies? Surely my many valuable contributions to the project have by now outweighed any mere sins of the flesh which I may have committed ten-fold. And who can even remember what it was that I was even initially blocked for to begin with? No one can. You people have held this pointless grudge against me for so long that you seem to have forgotten just what it is you were even angry about in the first place, and yet you persist. Perhaps someday you can all judge me not by the color of my Username, but by the content of my contributions. You seem to have all neglected the fact that WP:Blocks are not punishment, and yet you continue to seek to punish without even remembering the reason why. Infamia (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More possible socks

Just some examples, not intended to be a comprehensive list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1017:B400:815E:7D94:C251:BEA1:206C (talk · contribs)
21:26, 14 November 2017 - firat used
21:41, 14 November 2017 - blocked
209.140.35.48 (talk · contribs)
21:46, 14 November 2017 - first used
21:46, 14 November 2017 - blocked
2600:1017:B400:815E:8992:FEEE:349A:99BA (talk · contribs)
21:49, 14 November 2017 - first used
21:50, 14 November 2017 - blocked
Son of Supervoter (talk · contribs)
20:36, 15 November 2017 - first used
20:38, 15 November 2017 - indef'd


November 2017

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 The Bushranger One ping only 10:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infamia&oldid=1221607353"