User talk:Media Cop

The Beginning of the End

With regard to your comments on Talk:Puerto Rico: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOVEMBER 18, 2007

After carefully analyzing the progression and development of Puerto Rico Wiki Page, WE have concluded that it has been a FLAGRANT project to UNDERMINE the EXPLOITATION of POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY by:

with, but not limited to:

A False Portrayal and Impression of Puerto Rico
Distorted and Garbled Language Styles
No Insight about the Real Culture and Social Situation of Puerto Rico
No Enlightenment about the Education Status of Puerto Rico
Article Format Incertitude: Jumbled Structure and Disordered Composition
Unacceptable, Impetuous, Amateurish and Atrocious Article Hierarchy
Poor Copy Writing
Reversed Political Propaganda represented with the point of view of several individuals writing this article to vindicate and exonerate the point of views of other Wikipedians.

(Media Cop (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The purpose of Wikepedia is to EDUCATE every GENERATION with FREE THOUGHT, KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE, not SPECULATION or POINT OF VIEWS COMING FROM SEVERAL POLITICAL PARTY FANATICS. In this case, 3 individuals. Please revert to the New Version of the Puerto Rico Article; the Past Version was Confusing, Polarizing, Partisan and full of Bafflement.

Decline reason:

For one thing, you are autoblocked. Please follow the linked instructions. Second thing, do not SHOUT. — Kurykh 23:37, 18 November 2007 (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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: We need the actual block message, containing the blocking admin and your IP address to be able to locate your block — -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Gowanus Public Bath (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

- Caribbean~H.Q. 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked again by the same people (a group of several individuals monopolizing the entrance of other wikepedians into the article)

Such is the case regarding a possible hoax: Puerto Rico (board game) They keep deleting my comments on the article's talk page which reads:

   * Article reads like a hoax or blatant advertising from a company (Non-Notable)
   * Article needs Factual References from well-known established Publications (Including Germany, Canada and United States)
   * References and Footnotes Required
   * www.boardgamegeek.com is not a reliable source; it is written like a blog
   * www.rainydaygames.ca is not a reliable source; it is written like a blog
   * www.aleaspiele.de/Pages/A7/ is not a reliable source; it is written like a blog
   * At least one article from the New York Times and three from other prominent/respected sources in the United States including Puerto Rico

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block which is violations of WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2007 (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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)

Since you are one of the editors in the Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Carnegie Mellon University, I'd like to invite you to the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15 (this workshop is open to general public, and is a joint imitative of CMU and Pitt). There will be another workshop held at Pitt in the Fall as well. It will cover how to include Wikipedia in one's course (WP:SUP) and also how to become a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. Pennsylvania has currently only one ambassador (myself) and it would be great if we could recruit at least several more. Ambassadors help course instructors, showing them how Wikipedia works, and interact with students. Many current ambassadors come from the body of students, faculty and university staff; it is a fun adventure, and adds to one resume/CV, to boot :) If it sounds interesting, feel free to ask me any questions, or to come to the workshop.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Undisputed (Deep Dish album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Undisputed (Deep Dish album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undisputed (Deep Dish album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]