User talk:Jamiemichelle

Welcome

Hello, Jamiemichelle, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Finell (Talk) 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Rivera

Thanks for your work on this. I reverted your changes because you reintroduced a lot of unsourced information. If you'd like to discuss specific issues, I invite you to do so on the talk page. Thanks! Jokestress 09:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Playgirl-April-2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playgirl-April-2007.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Playgirl-April-2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Playgirl-April-2007.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Point (Tipler)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Omega Point (Tipler), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Omega point (Tipler). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the Move tab, not cut and paste, to 'rename' articles

Hello, Jamiemichelle. It appears that you copied and pasted Omega point (Tipler) to Omega Point (Tipler). Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, Shawis (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on March 18 2009 to Frank J. Tipler

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reverts on one article.

Jamiemichelle, I've protected the Frank J. Tipler article from editing as the war you were having with User:Headbomb was completely ridiculous. Please note that battling like this over content on an article usually results in you being blocked from editing, but I see that you have not been warned about this previously. Warring in articles is both destructive and pointless. Please can you civilly discuss the content of the article at Talk:Frank J. Tipler. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I think, you should familiarize yourself with the No personal attacks policy. I extended you block for one week, so now you have enough time. Ruslik (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged in no personal attack. What I did what point out that Headbomb's edits were illiterate and incoherent (and incompetent in the sense of being unobservant of literacy and coherency). Headbomb himself admitted as much by correcting merely some of the illiteracies and incoherencies which I pointed out to him (while leaving most of the problems he introduced intact), of which corrections are totally unneeded if Headbomb would stop repeatedly introducing them. Headbomb's edits are purely destructive. He has added no information to the article; he has simply deleted information, and that while introducing illiteracies and incoherencies.

He also has issued bizarrely false statements about his edits, such as stating that "Tipler is not known for either the 'purported physical proof of God' nor any recognized quantum theory of gravity/TOE." Yet that's what the only two sections in the "Academic work" section state that Prof. Tipler is known for claiming.

Along with the deletion of the links to free book chapters (of which edits had previously been reverted by the Wikipedia administrator Irishguy), the pattern of Headbomb's edits show a clear intent to damage the article due to Headbomb's ideological dislike of Prof. Tipler and his work, of which is further reinforced by the personal information on Headbomb's user page. That is, Headbomb is attempting to get rid of information that would be helpful for others to learn more about Tipler and his work (such as the links to free book chapters; and the infobox "Known for" field which, in the useful form in which I had it, would quickly let people know what Tipler is known for claiming: whereas listing books names and the Omega Point Theory's name would only make sense to someone if they already knew of them, and so they are either purely redundant or unhelpful; etc).

Whereas I have an actual history of adding value to this article by writing most of the article's text, adding sections, and adding most of the references. I don't point out this fact as a claim of ownership over the article--unlike Headbomb, who has effectively argued to the effect that the supposed "hard work" of his illiterate and destructive edits entitles him to keep the article the way he edited it--but rather to point out that I am actually literate and competent, and that I actually care about making it easier for people to learn about the subject of the article; unlike Headbomb's illiterate and incoherent edits, which get rid of highly useful information in order to make it harder for people to learn about the article's subject.

The article was doing fine until Headbomb came along. He has acted purely as a troublemaker in regard to this article, due to his ideological dislike of the article's subject.

You're rewarding a vandal and punishing the one person who has, by far, the greatest proven history of adding value to the article (as most of the article's text was written by me). --Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Playgirl-April-2007.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Playgirl-April-2007.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle. Thank you. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I really hate to do this Jamiemichelle, but if you actually took a look at the history of the page and read my edit summary, you'll come to your senses and realize that I wasn't even addressing you. I stated in my edit summary (look at the history and the diff): "This message is intended for other users. Please do not reply to it. Such comments belong in the "Comments by accused parties" box. And read my replies before posting." So stop adding your comments to where it doesn't belong. And why are you so hung up on my choice of words anyway? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. I'm sorry to have to bring this up again, but continually attacking me and the other IP address with implications of "ideologically motivated antitheism" or of "Atheism Bias" is no way to behave. You have frequently violated Wikipedia:AGF#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith and Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, by citing WP:AGF against us as well as multiple other editors. I'm letting you off the hook this time, simply because I'm allowing you to defend yourself in the SPI case, but if you ever go around attacking people in matters of religion, AGF, or otherwise, despite the warnings you have been frequently given, I assure you, you can be blocked from further editing. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. You've already been warned about calling me an "ideologically motivated antitheist" with an "atheism bias", so don't bother attempting to resist this warning. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jamiemichelle. You have new messages at Talk:Omega Point (Tipler).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Jamiemichelle. You have new messages at WP:WQA#User:58.96.94.12.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are obviously based on the paranoia that ideologically motivated people are out to get Frank J. Tipler. Please stop with such accusations or else I will be forced to ask you to go on a permanent wikibreak. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just replied to SineBot (i.e., you replied to a post by SineBot). You have a serious problem with imagining events that never took place, as the Wikiquette Alerts board shows [2].

You therein brought up a post by me there in response to Tim Shuba, wherein I mention, in response to something he said in his post, that I "edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them", of which post by me was made on 03:56, 20 June 2010 UTC.

Your sockpuppet accusation was filed on 02:44, 21 June 2010 UTC [3].

Yet you quote my said statement from my 03:56, 20 June 2010 UTC post there and respond to it, "You've obviously brought up the SPI case." Though of course I didn't bring up the SPI case, since it didn't even exist yet.

I brought up your TeleComNasSprVen name in my 14:47, 25 June 2010 UTC post on that board, but I didn't say anything negative about you, so there was nothing said about you for you to come there to defend yourself against. All I said there was that in a conversation with you, 58.96.94.12 violated Wikipedia policy in an attempted outing. So you're imagining something that never happened in saying "If you didn't wish me on here, then simply don't slander me." Below is the entire sentence where I mentioned your name:

58.96.94.12 has repeatedly called me nasty names such as "crackpot", "nutter", "nut", and "crank", on his own Talk page [4], and in a discussion with User:TeleComNasSprVen on his Talk page where 58.96.94.12 engaged in an attempted outing of me: [5].

As you can see, I therein said nothing negative about you. So I certainly didn't accuse you "of conspiring with the above IP address with connecting you to the attempted outing; that's how you brought me up", contrary to your habits of phantasmagorical imaginings.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... copying and pasting. Blah, blah, blah, nonsense. I'll repeat since you apparently didn't get the memo: Your edits are obviously based on the paranoia that ideologically motivated people are out to get Frank J. Tipler. Please stop with such accusations or else I will be forced to ask you to go on a permanent wikibreak. Also, I gave out multiple warnings of your violations of NPA policy directly in the section above the talkbacks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frank J. Tipler. 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. I count 4 reversions in the past 24 hours and have stated this on the ANI thread you started. I am warning the other editor as well as he is at three reverts by my count. N419 BH 22:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frank J. Tipler. 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. I am reporting you at the Administrator's Noticeboard for Edit Warring. This is your second 3RR violation on the article in as many days. N419 BH 03:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Frank J. Tipler. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that even work, given the fact that I didn't revert three times? Or is this just a formality to tell me that unwelcome truth isn't welcome?--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, you didn't revert three times. You reverted four times in an eight hour period:

The limit is three times in a twenty-four hour period according to WP:3RR. And I warned you about this above. Twice. Any other questions? N419 BH 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What N419BH means is that that the 3RR is a bright-line rule and if you go over it, you're almost certain to get a block—it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter two edits don't look familiar to me. But if someone's taken the effort to impute them to my account, then I suppose there's not much I can do to argue about them here.--71.49.118.8 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restrictions

Per the discussion at the administrators' incident noticeboard, ending with this closure at [6], I am notifying you of the following editing restrictions, placed for an indefinite period:

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and corresponding talk pages related to Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed. This topic ban applies to discussing the above on unrelated pages. Failure to comply will result in the removal of editing privileges for an appropriate length of time as determined by the blocking administrator.

Please note that as this ban is "broadly construed", it may be construed to include any attempt at lawyering around the restrictions.

You may appeal to the community for modification or repeal of this ban after demonstrating that it is no longer required to prevent disruption. While no minimum time frame prior to an appeal was set in the ban proposal, I highly recommend that you have at least three, and preferably six, months of trouble-free editing in unrelated areas under your belt before making such an appeal. You may also, if you believe that this ban was placed erroneously, appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "topic banned"?

At any rate, whatever it is, I like how the only person who actually knew anything about the Omega Point cosmology on Wikipedia is "topic banned" from talking about it on Wikipedia. That's just brilliant. Instead, those who have admitted and demonstrated that they know nothing about it are now going to be the self-appointed Wikipedia experts on it.

Well, if you can't beat them, you can always censor them. Even though I've always been a stickler for following Wikipedia's rules, when it comes down to it, all that matters is shear force. And I'm outnumbered, and out of power. So those who violated Wikipedia policies up and down the line are now in charge of the Tipler articles.

They couldn't get their wish following Wikipedia policies, and I was a thorn in their side by calling them on it, but now they've gotten rid of that thorn. How wonderful. What a proud event in Wikipedia history.--71.49.118.8 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's really the problem - that you approach the article as if you're the only one who knows anything and that everyone else is simply wrong. Wikipedia works by consensus (eg on deciding how many individual sources are needed for a given statement - usually 1, not lots), and consensus can't work if one person refuses to abide by it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case -> ANI/Incident

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You have been topic-banned from editing anything to do with Frank J. Tipler or his Omega Point theory - which certainly means you must not edit the article about him. 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "Once the block has expired" I am "welcome to make useful contributions" to the Frank J. Tipler article?--Jamie Michelle (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are indefinitely topic-banned from Frank J. Tipler, and if you breach your ban again once this block is lifted you will be blocked for longer. To refresh your memory, your topic-ban is detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's say that what you're saying is true. How did this ban come about? (Sorry that I do not know what a "topic ban" is.) I was never consulted about it. I've followed Wikipedia rules very closely (yes, I might have gone over the three revert rule some times unintentionally, but other than that I make a point of being in conformance to Wikipedia policy). Although note that the previous claim of my violation of the three revert rule appears to involve some chicanery, as I had nothing to do with the last two reverts attributed under my handle. Some party played a dirty trick there.

But beyond such dirty tricks, how did it come about that I am supposedly so-called "topic banned"? I was never consulted on this. That seems utterly one-sided, as if a party who simply disliked what I was saying made the decision.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed on your Talk page, above - see the section "Notice of editing restrictions". And I've already given you a link to the topic ban discussion on the WP:ANI page. There was a lengthy discussion in which you took part, at Wikipedia:Ani#Jaimechelle COI, Incidents, which concluded with the topic ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm off to bed now, so I won't be able to respond any further for a little while - but if you can convince another admin that your block should be lifted or shortened, I'm happy for them to make it so without consulting me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just great, because I am not even capable of editing there. I mean to say that the forum software will not allow it. So I cannot even dispute this among the Administrators.

Wow, that's just great. I was never consulted about this, I never had a say in it, and I have no recourse. No one asked me my stance or for me to explain myself, but now I find that I'm verboten. This was all done without any input from me.

How does that even happen? Like I've said, I'm a stickler for Wikipedia rules. Where I've violated Wikipedia rules is in the three-revert rule, but I didn't do that on the last time (i.e., the last reason given for my "ban"), as that involved someone else's edits attributed to my account (i.e., the last two edits attributed to me). I didn't make those two edits. Someone played a trick there.

But even if those were my edits (which they weren't), I hardly see how I can be banned for that. Like I said, no one consulted with me. No one asked for my input. No one asked for me to defend myself.

I could have defended myself. I could have offered a defense. But that never came into whatever process it was that banned me.

Like I said, I'm a stickler for Wikipedia policy. It's Wilipedia policy that I used to argue against other people's abuse of Wikipedia editing.

I went over the three-revert rule the previous time this came up, but not this time. And I don't see how going over the three-revert rule somehow grants that I cannot valuably contribute to the Frank J. Tipler article, especially considering that I wrote virtually all of it, even in its currently-edited state (I don't say that to claim ownership, but rather to make the point of how odd it is to say that I'm not welcome here when the article still mostly uses what I wrote).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Usually the closing admin would take into account that the user which the ban is targeted at is always opposed to the ban because they think they are right and justified in what they do. And even if you had given your opinion to the thread, the count was fourteen to three already and the result would have been the same.)

Okay, here is how this ban works. Have a look-see at the information at Wikipedia:Banning policy and the post by Seraphimblade up top. You are not allowed to revert, you are not allowed to edit, you are not even allowed to discuss anything related to the topics of Frank J. Tipler or his theory, except when appealing your block or ban. The point of this is to get you to hopefully constructively work on other areas of the encyclopedia, like the gigantic Wikipedia backlog we have around. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how wonderful that I have a false-accuser telling me these things. Your previous attempt of accusing me of being a sockpuppet failed [7]. But now you've got a second chance. How noble of you. Aren't you just so disinvolved and objective. Wow, you're really high-minded. I guess I have no choice but to bow down to your high-minded ideals.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have do anything about me. But you do have to adhere to the terms of the ban, no matter how arbitrary they are. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK I have no previous history with you. So let me say I agree with all TCNSV has said. I have not looked in to why you are banned, but the fact remains as long as you are banned, you can't edit any articles covered by your ban. Your disagreement with the ban is noted, but largely irrelevant since by and large most people disagree with their bans. You have already previously been given the opportunity to defend yourself during the first discussion the resulted in your ban, I'm not sure whether you weren't available but while you can appeal your ban, it's quite unlikely to succeed since it's unlikely you'll have anything to say that will mediate what others found when considering the ban initially. An appeal is particularly unlikely to succeed if you are going to claim edits linked to your account were somehow attached by someone else or that everyone else was at fault and your behaviour was perfect as I see you have said above. You can also appeal to the arbitration committee. Do note the topic ban came from the wikipedia community not from TCNSV. If you do want a chance for an appeal to succeed you need to wait a period of time, probably 6 months, before appealing and in the mean time demonstrating your ability to work collaboratively and constructively in other areas of the encylopaedia so that people feel you have learned enough that we can trust you to behave better in the area you were topic banned from.

Note that nearly all of this was noted in original message from Seraphimblade so I suggest you read it if you haven't already. I would also strongly suggest you read the discussion leading up to your ban. BTW, you can't post to ANI or anywhere else while blocked. Once your block has expired you will be able. Alternatively people can post there for you. Bear in mind however what I've already said.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you can ask for your block to be lifted by following the instructions in the block notice - you'd have to convince the reviewing admin that you will abide by your topic ban (I won't lift the block myself, but anyone else is welcome to if they feel it is justified, without needing to contact me first) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]