User talk:Struct

User talk:Struct/Archive 1-14-2007
User talk:Struct/Archive 1-15-2007
User talk:Struct/Archive 3-18-2007

Single Purpose Accounts

Please read what I have written over at the Jericho talk page. If you do that again, seeing your Archived talk pages, I will request moderation, and if need be, action.--Fshy 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're obviously a troll, feel free to do whatever you feel like. Struct 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having cooled down, and thought things over, I probably acted unprofessionally and apologize. I probably took that tag as an insult, when it was probably meant in good faith. I request that we move our little spat over here or to my talk page, as it basically had nothing to do with the topic in question. I still feel the tag was inappropriate, but I overreacted. --Fshy 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

It is unclear what the specific source for the copyright violation is on List of government agencies in comics. Could you explain further here. As it is such a serious issue we'd like to have all the information to hand so we can make the right decision and fix this situation asap. Thanks. (Emperor 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but copyvio'ing the whole page is a drastic and premature move. Groupthink 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning me

I think issuing that warning was unnecessary. As was clear on from my edit comments and from talk page discussion the reason large parts of the article were unreferenced was because of an issue arising from one of the reference being deemed an unreliable source, which meant we had to remove the lot. It will take a while to fully reference everything but I note that such an effort is currently ongoing. If you have problems with the entry please address them on the talk page rather using unsupported claims for copyright violation (see comments above and on the talk page) and issuing warnings for my reverting your removal of the page (without trying to get a consensus which seems to be in favour of the article being useful and fully sourcable) to try and impose your opinion on the page.

So to summarise: If there are problems take them up on the talk page or get a second opinion on the comics project. (Emperor 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Eric Rudolph and Olympic Park bomber rvs

Hey there, thanks for the support! I reverted your edits in the interest of consensus-building, which if you look at my user page, you'll see is a process I am highly skeptical of. But sometimes things just have to play out. Feel free to revert again if no one responds soon! Groupthink (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob I guess? Personally I think your edits are Wikipedia:Bold and the other eds are playing games with policy because of their confirmation bias, but it's all good. Struct (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christianity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Moxy🍁 22:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not violate 3RR. But reverting the removal of a valid, accurate, and constructive edit is not edit-warring. See talk page for that article. Struct (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the oddest additions I've seen in a long time.... My first thought was....is this account compromised? Apparently not. Moxy🍁 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page. Just because you find it odd doesn't mean it's not accurate or sourceable. Struct (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you all the best of luck trying to get this in the encyclopedia. Moxy🍁 23:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It belongs in an Encyclopedia which claims to document all topics dispassionately from a neutral point of view. Struct (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I disagree that my edits were disruptive, and I would be happy to discuss this. I cited several WP policies in defending my edits (see [1]). If my citations were incorrect, or there are larger concerns, I am open to feedback and instruction.

But even if you agree that my edits were disruptive, an indefinite ban for a first offense seems very harshly punitive and uncalled for.

I would ask the blocking admin to define "MANY" users (emphasis theirs). I count four, and I suspect that some or all of them are brigading or even socking.

I would also add that my accusations of socking and/or brigading only came after a number of coordinated bad-faith/ad hominem attacks were made on me ([2]). WP policy prohibits a user from making a checkuser request on themselves, otherwise I would gladly submit one. Feel free to check everyone in the discussion linked including myself. (A former housemate of mine probably edited using this IP address. I do not recall his user name. I will reach out to him and get it in the interest of full disclosure and update accordingly. Also note that I made a number of recent edits to Otter 841 without logging in ([3])).

Thank you for your consideration. Struct (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Many" usually means at least three; by your own admission there was four. Since you see nothing wrong with edit warring to put a highly charged viewpoint (that no one else so far has agreed should be there) in a highly visible article about a major religion, and making attacks on people who disagree(whether they are to you or not is irrelevant, use proper processes to report bad conduct against you) there are no grounds to remove the block. I'm very skeptical that you should be unblocked without a topic ban from Christianity-related articles, at least in terms of LGBTQ issues, but that will be up to the next reviewer should you make another request. I'm declining this one. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2024 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I would be happy to commit to using "proper processes to report bad conduct against" me (I'm assuming you mean the admin notice boards). I'd be more than willing to abide by that proviso. Please note that I was the one who made the 3rr report against another user that resulted in my getting banned; it was not made against me. From an administrative perspective, a topic ban from Christianity-related articles seems reasonable. I disagree with that decision but I'll accept it and abide by it. I would ask for the opportunity to plead my case to the community and appeal the ban, also through proper channels. Struct (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (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.