User talk:Ndphil21
NA Edits
[edit]If you could explain to me what is inappropriate about the NA edits in the internal controversies section, I would be glad to come up with some revisions that might meet your standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobkcis (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit summary
[edit]Hi, I just noticed this edit summary of, "b/c i'm tired of a certain douchebag acting like a little bitch third grader". This is not acceptable and a violation of WP:NPA. Thanks. - Denny 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
User 69.115.23.71
[edit]Hey,
just noticed your comments on his user page- he having removed them previously. It's probably best not the feed the trolls; even with sarcasm. Have a cookie instead!
Seriously, I have reported him to AIV, and am going to check up and see what happened to his block. He definitly is in the wrong with his personal attacks on you, but let's try and be cool about it; it's only an encyclopedia! Cheers, TheOne00 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- He's been blocked for 24hours. I'll keep an eye on him for you when he returns. TheOne00 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:DSCF0630.JPG
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:DSCF0630.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: NA Edits
[edit]I posted a notice on the 3RR notification list. You might also get a temporary ban out of this one too. The 3RR applies to all reverts that aren't obvious vandalism, and that's kind of a grey area up to the admin. But, I wouldn't worry about it. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 3RR violation
[edit]
TigerShark (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems clear to be that you were aware of the relevant policies at that you actually considered yourself to be edit warring from your edit summary here. TigerShark (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just received your email, thanks for getting in touch. I am sorry that you are unhappy with the decision, but I still feel that it was required, especially as evidenced by your edit summary that mentioned been in an edit war. The thing is that pure editing warring never solves these problems. If the edits were vandalism, that is a different matter and then should be handled as such. If they were just a content dispute, as they seemed to be, then no amount of edit warring is justified. You also mentioned the fact that you had been discussing with the other party. That is good of course, but you still continued to edit war, while you discussed. On the subject of discussion, I would like to politely suggest that this is probaly not the best tone to take when trying to achiee consensus with another user. Best Regards TigerShark (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ndphil21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 76.108.238.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ndphil21". The reason given for Ndphil21's block is: "Edit warring: at Narcotics Anonymous".
- Blocking administrator: TigerShark (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. Sandstein 11:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|Originally, my block was for 24hrs. That point has long passed. So why am I still blocked? This is ridiculous. I still don't know why I was blocked the first time, so I certainly don't understand why I've been blocked again. Give me a break here. I mean seriously, this is Wikipedia, not the United Nations. Let's not take ourselves too seriously here. Can I be let out of prison now please?!?}}
Re: My Unblock
[edit]Hi, you were blocked because you were "edit warring" with an other editor on Narcotics Anonymous. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we can't have a "the last man awake wins" battles. Therefore the community decided that if someome performed the same edit 3 times (or less if they know the consequences) on a single day on an article, an administrator must intervene to cool things down. I know it comes with frustration over the Internet (where you can't talk directly with the other editors), but you need to discuss your changes on the talk page before performing them, when they are challenged. You need to both come to a consensus instead of edit warring like you (both) did. -- lucasbfr talk 13:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)