User talk:The Great Editor In Chief

hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Great_Editor_In_Chief#Questions_for_the_candidate

(

This user scored score on the Wikipediholic test (revision 4094).

)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, The Great Editor In Chief! I am Mifter and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mifter (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages from Mifter

Hello, The Great Editor In Chief. You have new messages at Mifter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mifter (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages from Mifter

Hello, The Great Editor In Chief. You have new messages at Mifter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mifter (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages from Mifter

Hello, The Great Editor In Chief. You have new messages at Mifter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mifter (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Yes I said you are sock puppet I am kidding with you because you use toooo sweet language and there is a smell of flattering in your talks don't take it seriously since i am a member of project fun i need to spread smile :P ;) and other big reason is that you dont have a userpage 123.236.2.43 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) enjoy wikipedia[reply]

New Messages from Mifter

Hello, The Great Editor In Chief. You have new messages at Mifter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mifter (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AR TYOM 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

If you're serious about your RFA you should add it to the top of the main RFA page's nomination section by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Great Editor In Chief}}. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit other people's RFAs! MSGJ (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfA early per WP:NOTNOW as it stood little chance of passing, and keeping it running would have done no good. You might want to have a look at admin coaching before running again; please don't think this a personal judgement about you, and keep up the good editing work! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the comments from your now closed RfA. S. Dean Jameson 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Russert

Please do not remove (and revert) entire sections of established articles without discussion. The part you removed was a piece of a merge undertaken after much discussion. Further removal will be reverted. S. Dean Jameson 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --S. Dean Jameson (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to refuse to discuss your removal of text from an agreed-upon merge, I'm certain you will be blocked for tendentious editing. Consider this a warning. S. Dean Jameson 21:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite entitled to remove the comments of other users - however editing them to change the meaning or tone is strictly prohibited and if you persist, you may be blocked. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Is clever :) I did think people were referring to Jimbo for a bit.... I hope you enjoy editing here as much as the name indicates. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note his editing history. S. Dean Jameson 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread regarding your behavior at WP:ANI

Here is the link to the thread discussing your behavior. S. Dean Jameson 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption by forging offensive comments by other editors ([1], [2]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account with this username has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. Keep in mind, though, that creating a new account is much faster and easier.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Great Editor In Chief (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Fair Trader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

This account has been used primarily for disruption, therefore, it should remain indefinitely blocked as a disruption only account, in addition to being an improper username. There is speculation below that this account may be a sock puppet. I note that the third edit was to create a userpage with a pornographic, copyright violating image. That is not indicative of a new, good faith user. — Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the reason for the username block was because Editor in Chief implies a position of responsibility and oversight on Wikipedia, which does not exist, and may be confusing to new users. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this username block, for the reasons given. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred RFC/NAME, but given that he doesn't want to discuss, I support the indefblock as well. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose any unblock. This account has all the hallmarks of another GENIUS(4th power) sock. – iride scent 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Great Editor In Chief (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Lines Of A Script (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

The indefinite block was originally, quite correctly, for your inappropriate edits. Changing your username will not correct the problem of the shocking inappropriateness of your edits. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock; the original block reason is appropriate, and the attempt to falsely accuse another editor is wildly inappropriate, regardless of username. The unblock request only addresses the problematic username, not the bad behavior that originally triggered the block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose any unblock. This user has proven himself to be acting in bad faith, not just with the username, but with the malicious altering of my comments, and his follow-up attempt to smear me using the trumped-up (by him) comments. S. Dean Jameson 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has wantonly deleted cited content. The username is clearly an helpful ploy. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of my encounters with this editor, and one of the several reasons I think he should stay indef-blocked. S. Dean Jameson 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a 24-hour block for disruption and an indefinate block for bad username. According to our username policy, he should be unblocked to choose another username (when the 24-hour block for disruption expires). Since this didn't happen, I assume there is more to the story. Please adjust the blocking templates above accordingly for clarity. Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly stated above, and below, that the account is now indef blocked for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

You were blocked for faking messages from others. Faking an unblock acceptance was not very helpful. Since you've made it so clear that you are not interested in editing appropriately, you will not need further access to this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]