User talk:Some Gadget Geek/2015/November

Archives

How do I get rid of that Babel message at the top of my talk page?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, can anyone tell me how to get rid of the annoying message at the top of this page that says, You haven't set up any languages. Please see Template:Babel/doc for help. If you go to my userpage you will clearly see Babel set up. So why is the message on my talk page still there? Bedankt, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are using Template:User talk page. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes usually go on a user page, not a user talk page, and this user has the relevant boxes on his user page. What's the point of putting them on the user talk page too? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could either subst that template and then edit the two lines near the bottom, to remove them or to make them display your babel items; or you could switch to another template like {{User talk-page header}} or {{User talk}} or any of the others listed at Template:User talk/doc. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also {{usertalkpage}}, which is given in the hatnote on {{user talk page}}. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

In the light of your unblock request on behalf of a diffrent user, I've blocked you. Whether it's a block evasion or disruptive eidting, it's a clean indicator of serious problems with this account. Max Semenik (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2015 (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).

Some Gadget Geek/2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To Whom It May Concern: First off, I would like to apologize for my activity in other users' userspace over the past few days. Throughout my time at Wikipedia I have been watching out for vandalism and taking appropriate actions to deal with it, but never realized that I would run into the "serious problems with this account" with regards to editing in non-article namespaces. I happened to stumble upon Dethzone's page when looking at what pages link to Template:User talk page and noticed there were some unblock requests that didn't get processed due to syntax errors in the wiki markup, so I decided to fix it up and see what the result is. While I did so purely for the means of experimentation with templates, I never expected it would make such a huge impact. And contrary to my previous block discussed at ANI, I did not explicitly intend to post a new message to his talk page, but wanted to instead repair syntax that didn't make sense. In closing, I am now aware that the other users' userspace is not the place for experiments and regret that I even thought of doing these kinds of actions with my account. I will always think twice before I do anything while logged into Wikipedia, regardless of the nature in which it belongs. I'd only wish there would be a special sandbox page created explicitly for users to test user warning templates. Thank you in advance for your attention. Yours sincerely, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk)

Decline reason:

I have checked every talk page edit that Dethzone ever made while blocked. There is nothing there that remotely resembles the phony unblock request that you posted there. Consequently, your claim that you were "fixing up" an unblock request that had syntax errors is false. It was either vandalism or a rather clumsy and ill-thought out attempt to use a sockpuppet to get another one of your accounts unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2015 (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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Some Gadget Geek/2015 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear JamesBWatson,

Thank you very much for attending to my request for unblock.

I am now admitting that my most recent edit to Dethzone's talk page was not an attempt to "repair syntax" or "fix up" an unblock request. I was actually in the progress of experimenting with the use of user templates, and considering that the user was blocked indefinitely a while back, thought that would be an appropriate place to perform my experimentation. I am fully aware that what I have done was completely inappropriate (as per the policies listed at WP:NOBAN, WP:TPO, and WP:TPNO on WP:TPG) and I hereby apologize for everything that has led up to this block.

Now I would now like to turn your attention to the fact that I was in the midst of a training program with Kharkiv07 in the Counter-Vandalism User Academy, with the goal of achieving rollback rights. I was advised to join this training program after an editor denied one of my two requests for rollback on the grounds of failure to distinguish constructive from disruptive edits, and even going as far as to make disruptive edits myself (such as on the page Yue).

You can see my training page here, and while I initially got off to a slow start, I eventually recovered. As Kharkiv's earlier message on this page says, I was on the verge of receiving endorsement for rollback permissions, when this whole incident was ignited with the template I posted to Barek's talk page. Later, he explicitly requested that I stop posting to his userspace, which I ignored and which led to an incident at ANI that is linked to earlier in my talk page.

The reason for the 48-hour block given by Liz was for me to read the admin's message regarding not posting to other user's pages upon request. This led me to believe that it would not be harmful if I posted on a user talk page that would not be monitored, such as on Dethzone's (which by the age of his block alone is clearly not a sockpuppet of me by any means), as it was almost impossible that he would be monitoring his userspace due to his ancient block that is still active. Because of my false beliefs as I have just detailed, my account has essentially been shut down, after over 2000 meaningful edits, a sign that I was on my way to becoming a trusted and established user on Wikipedia.

It makes me feel uneasy to know that all my progress made since I made my first edits to this encyclopedia more than a year ago has been completely rendered useless by this indefinite block. The fact that I was in the progress of learning how to be a Wikipedia via my CVUA training merely emphasizes this discomfort. With that, I only have to add that if the block on my account be lifted, I not only will immediately cease my disruptive actions, but will actively contribute and aid in maintaining Wikipedia to make it a safer, usable, and accessible online community for all.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Warmest regards, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk)

Accept reason:

I hope you've learned your lesson and realise now that sincerity is always better and that mindless playing around with stuff can have consequences. Max Semenik (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to unblock request

This was not "repairing syntax", this was a new unblock request out of nowhere. ~~2601:642:4500:37B0:B540:F1D7:367D:1D2B (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)~~ Max Semenik (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Max Semenik,

To be honest, I'm admitting now to the fact that I was initially amused by the consequence of the initial syntax fix and decided to see how the admins would react to a user admitting his or her account got hacked. I did not intend to directly harass the user in question, and what I did was purely for the means for experimentation, as was previously stated.

Once again, I express my deepest and most sincere apologies to @Dethzone: and anyone else who may have been affected by my actions. I will refrain from making similar edits like these in the future and will think twice every time before hitting save no matter what page I am on.

Cordially, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, although I declined your earlier unblock request, I would have accepted the latest one. I accept that you were just experimenting, but experimenting "to see how the admins would react", or in any other way that is likely to waste other editors' time is really not a good idea. I strongly recommend being careful not to do anything similar again, because if it happens again and you are blocked again, it will begin to look as though you are just here for trolling, and it will much less likely that any administrator will be willing to unblock you again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you want to experiment, User:Some Gadget Geek/sandbox is the best place to do it. (However, even there, don't post unblock requests, because they will be listed in the list of unblock requests for administrators to check. I suggest you've had enough experience of unblock requests now, and it will be best to avoid ever making any more if possible!) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where we stand

Hi Some Gadget Geek. I'm going to be honest here: I'm not in a position where I'm willing to endorse a request for rollback, and I don't think I will be any time in the near future. If you wish to make a request for rollback, I can't stop you, however I'd advise against it.

That being said, if you wish to continue in the academy, and focus on non-rollback related tasks, I'd be happy to continue training. Just tell me what you'd like to do.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:14, 15 November 2015 (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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panasonic Toughpad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Some Gadget Geek, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Information about STiki, including:
- Using STiki and its hotkeys
- Comparison with other tools
Information about vandalism on Wikipedia

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrike Σagle 06:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coal gas may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

latter to hydrogen and carbon dioxide although some [[destructive distillation]] may also occur.}&}&

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrolling

Hi, I'm back, sorry about that. I see that you've been doing less counter-vandalism work, and more and more new page patrolling. Would you like to start focusing on this, or continue counter-vandalism work? Kharkiv07 (T) 19:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]