User talk:KHamsun

Welcome to the KHamsun talk page.

Otrs ticket

Do you work for otrs and have you seen any details of this ticket at all ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

An editor placed a sockpuppet warning on this page. This warning was unfounded and was removed.

Sock of a blocked user

Hi, you appear to be the sock of an indefinitely blocked user, this account is User:MBernal615 , and have removed templates from pictures uploaded by that user, could you explain this situation? Do you deny having any connection to that user? Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your above message: you have placed templates on photographs that already showed Permissions sent to OTRS.

You placed these templates on top of the Notices of Permission. That is why they were removed.

KHamsun (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Antonio Denis (Photos)

Angus,

I noticed you assisted the Nelson Antonio Denis page by placing the appropriate OTRS Pending tag on top of a photo (the fourth photo).

Permissions have been sent to OTRS for all the other photos, but an editor keeps ignoring (and often removing) the OTRS Pending notice on them...then tagging them for deletion, as if the OTRS Pending notice had never existed.

Could you take a look at it, when you get a chance? Otherwise this situation will just continue.

Thank you,

KHamsun (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Aircraft Establishment

I noted and understood your reversion of my recent edit to the RAE article. It's a good article, a really interesting subject, and you've made some important contributions to it.

I was trying to improve upon the usage of the word "latterly." Do you think this is the clearest expression of the RAE's current status?

I'll leave it to you; thanks again for your work.

Best,

KHamsun (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Latterly" is a little literary - how does the current rewriting suit do you think?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a masterful edit! Great job, Soundofmusicals.

KHamsun (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I was just blocked without warning or discussion today. My editorial history has been entirely constructive, and I ask you to review it. The only "friction" I had with anyone was when I encountered some improperly placed templates on photographs in an article about Nelson Antonio Denis. These templates were all repeatedly placed without discussion, and right on top of the evidence of permission sent to OTRS (!) Following Wiki procedure I removed these improper templates and made note of this in the discussion page of each photo. The editor who placed these templates then wrote on my User page and accused me of sockpuppetry. The mere fact that I made appropriate, respectful and non-disruptive edits from a previously (and no longer) blocked IP address does not make me a sockpuppet. At this point, the photos from the Nelson Antonio Denis article were completely removed by this same editor, even though evidence of permission clearly existed for each photo. Yet ironically, it is I who stand accused of wrong behavior. If we are to assume and promote good faith editing, then it is not me - KHamsun - who should have been blocked. Please review my editorial history, the actions of this other editor if necessary, and make an appropriate decision. Thank you, KHamsun (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid that a WP:CHECKUSER has confirmed that you are abusing multiple accounts. I don't have checkuser access myself, so I actually can't lift your block because I can't see the evidence, but that is what you need to address if you wish to be unblocked. I believe you are mistaken in thinking that a few edits you made while logged out are the only reason for this accusation. As is noted above and on your user page, it seems likely you are the same person as User:MBernal615. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked yesterday without notice of any pending action, without discussion, or without any specific evidence presented. Other than the Checkuser action itself, I was just blocked without any further information or opportunity to defend myself. My editorial history has been entirely constructive, and I ask you to review it. The only "friction" I had with anyone was when I encountered some improperly placed templates on photographs in an article about Nelson Antonio Denis. These templates were all repeatedly placed without discussion, and right on top of the evidence of permission sent to OTRS (!) Following Wiki procedure I removed these improper templates and made note of this in the discussion page of each photo. The editor who placed these templates then wrote on my User page and accused me of sockpuppetry. The mere fact that I made appropriate, respectful and non-disruptive edits from a previously (and no longer) blocked IP address does not make me a sockpuppet. At this point, the photos from the Nelson Antonio Denis article were completely removed by this same editor, even though evidence of permission clearly existed for each photo. Yet ironically, it is I who stand accused of wrong behavior. If we are to assume and promote good faith editing, then it is not me - KHamsun - who should have been blocked. I have not been able to find any evidence for this block decision, so my above words are the most specific defense I am able to provide. Please review my editorial history, the actions of this other editor if necessary, and make an appropriate decision. Thank you, KHamsun (talk) 2:45 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but you'll need to request unblocking from your main account. TN X Man 20:17, 3 March 2010 (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.

Creating a new account to circumvent a block on a different account is a violation of wikipedia policies and often results in a loss of editing privileges. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked without notice of any pending action, without discussion, or without any specific evidence presented. Other than the Checkuser action itself, I was just blocked without any further information or opportunity to defend myself. An editor wrote that "creating a new account to circumvent a block on an old account is a violation of Wikipedia policies. I understand this, but again -- no evidence was presented to me, no notice was given, no opportunity to defend myself was extended. Another editor wrote that I need to make my unblock request "from my main account," but this was my main account. If it wasn't, then I would indeed be a sockpuppet. Also since the entire IP address was blocked, this user page is the only place I can I can write or request anything. Please review my editorial history. My editorial history has been entirely constructive. The only "friction" I had was when I encountered some improperly placed templates on photographs in an article about Nelson Antonio Denis. These templates were all repeatedly placed without discussion, and right on top of the evidence of permission sent to OTRS (!) Following Wiki procedure I removed these improper templates and made note of this in the discussion page of each photo. The editor who placed these templates then wrote on my User page and accused me of sockpuppetry. The mere fact that I made appropriate, respectful and non-disruptive edits from a previously (and no longer) blocked IP address does not make me a sockpuppet. At this point, the photos from the Nelson Antonio Denis article were completely removed by this same editor, even though evidence of permission clearly existed for each photo. Yet ironically, it is I who stand accused of wrong behavior. If we are to assume and promote good faith editing, then it is not me - KHamsun - who should have been blocked. I have not been able to find any evidence for this block decision, so my above words are the most specific defense I am able to provide. Please review my editorial history, the actions of this other editor if necessary, and make an appropriate decision. Thank you, KHamsun (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that say the same thing will receive the same response; if made repeatedly, your talk page editing rights may be removed. If you wish to be unblocked, you should probably explain why the account User:MBernal615 has been editing from the same computer as this account. Your editorial history has nothing to do with the reason for your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:45, 6 March 2010 (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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you, Hersfold. I can now answer in a more succinct, specific manner. Our IP address was temporarily blocked due to a user named MBernal615. I am not MBernal615, I am KHamsun. It is my understanding that other individuals can edit from an IP address, once a temporary block has been lifted. If my editorial history had nothing to do with the block (and it's a positive, constructive editorial history), then I don't understand why I was blocked. Thank you for responding, KHamsun (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am sorry, but this intersect of edits - including what would be a rarely-accessed photo - appears to negate the claim that the users are not related, and solidifies the original block for WP:SOCK. Attempts to obfuscate this are insulting, and poorly-planned. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 6 March 2010 (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.