Jump to content

User talk:TrevelyanL85A2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello!!!

[edit]

Hi, this is Jobin, a new wikipedia user. I came to understand that you have an interest in Computer and related topics. I am working on a few articles related to Programming in C. Therefore, I kindly request you to help me on these topics

You may also drop your valuable suggestions on other related articles on my talk page. Jobin RV (talk • contribs)Jobin RV 14:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, TrevelyanL85A2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Deepu Joseph. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message.
thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK

Userboxes

[edit]

I believe you were refering to the userboxes (the ones that said "This user wastes too musch time on wikipedia" et al). You can get all the low down on userboxes right here, including instructions on how to add them to your user page. Enjoy! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

[edit]

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

[edit]

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

[edit]

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

[edit]

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

[edit]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Magick

[edit]

Actually, this article is about a specific form of magic which is spelled with a terminal 'k'. Please don't remove the 'k' again. Now that you have been informed, that would have to be considered vandalism. GlassFET 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

[edit]

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator selection

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Month for December

[edit]

RIT was nominated for WikiProject Universities's Collaboration of the Month. Take a wander over to this page and vote for RIT! (Don't forget to update the Vote Counter manually) There have been several cries in the past for an RIT Wikiproject - now's your chance to prove that RIT is big enough! Mjf3719 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

You should just be able to add a {{-}} between each section heading to break it. As for my formatting, feel free to steal it! :) --Dan LeveilleTALK 10:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

[edit]


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBR&I

[edit]

Hi TrevlyanL85A2. ArbCom is aware that you are a real life friend of Ferahgo-the-Assassin. By editing in the area of the topic ban imposed on her and Captain Occam in the above case, your editing will probably be viewed as a means for them to bypass their ban through others. Another editor in the same situation is SightWatcher. In both cases, your real life identities are known by arbitrators. The simplest thing is for you to stop editing in that area. Appearing out of the blue with a campaign against a single editor [1] looks particularly bad. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

[edit]

Hi TrevelyanL85A2,

The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form.

But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach.

As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBR&I

[edit]

I realize you're probably aware of this as you know editors who've been topic banned, but if you're interested in actively editing in the topic area, you might wish to review the WP:ARBR&I case, as well as the amendments to the discretionary sanctions: [2]. Constructive editing is always welcome. aprock (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I understand this is a contentious topic area and I hope to work constructively with you and others. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have left links on your user page which identify you unambiguously in real life. You are a real life friend of Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely topic banned under WP:ARBR&I. A former arbitrator, Shell Kinney, has already verified this a long while back. If you continue editing tendentiously in this topic area (for example, your refusal to use sources), it is highly likely, per WP:MEAT, that the same topic ban currently applied to Captain Occam and your real life friend Ferahgo the Assassin will be applied to you. More than that, in fact: you could possibly all be community banned for a long term campaign of willful deception. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression you were asked by Arbcom to drop this. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are mistaken. From what I was told by Shell Kinney, ArbCom decided that problems with your editing would be dropped, provided your account (and that of Sightwatcher) stayed clear of articles connected with the topic bans of Ferhago the Assassin and Captain Occam. That does not seem to be the case now. You are involved in blatant meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it a particularly good idea to bring your friend Ferahgo the Assassin into this, as you have just done. Your editing should simply stay completely outside the area of their topic ban. As you will see on WP:AE, it is now properly acknowledged that the issues of disruptive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are taken seriously in WP:ARBR&I. And it never seems to stop. For example Mikemikev just this week. His sockpuppet 스토킹 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indefinitely blocked. Why is your editing in this area any less problematic than that of Mikemikev? Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is not mistaken.
[3] February, Roger Davies asked you to leave it to uninvolved editors to bring it up if someone's editing is a problem.
[4] April, Risker told you clearly to disengage.
[5] [6] September, Roger Davies and Cool Hand Luke both told you to disengage. [7] From my understanding, the only reason you weren't given an interaction ban is because the arbitrators were confident you would follow their advice.
[8] And finally, less than two weeks ago you were formally warned by Jclemens to stop bringing up off-wiki evidence against other editors. You are clearly disregarding all of this advice.
TrevelyanL85A2 didn't bring me into this; you did, as soon as you mentioned my name. I can't believe you're still bringing me up on Wikipedia after all this time. Over the past year or so I've put a lot of effort into contributing my skills and knowledge to other areas of Wikipedia, and in developing a history here that is separate and distinct from the topic that unfortunately caused us to cross paths. There is absolutely no reason for you to continue bringing up my name on Wikipedia, and treating other editors poorly because you associate them with me. This absolutely needs to stop.
Please, Mathsci. You need to make an effort to assume good faith here and just let it drop so we can all move on. I really don't want to, but if you aren't willing to agree to stop (or if you just ignore this request), I will be forced to take the matter back to an amendment and push for that interaction ban. If you can't voluntarily let this go, I doubt that anything short of an interaction ban will put a stop to this. Can you answer me simply: will you please leave this alone and stop mentioning me & Occam on Wikipedia? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I received several emails from Shell Kinney, which you are not privy to, which confirmed the identification of TrevelyanL85A2. It does not seem like a very wise move for you to be lobbying for your confirmed friends to edit in the exact area of your topic ban. I can see no difference at all between the edits of Mikemikev and TrevelyanL85A2. Both accounts are breaking topic bans set by ArbCom. Captain Occam already has spent a considerable amount of time wikilawyering on WP:AE both when a topic ban was proposed for Miradre and later during the subsequent appeal. That was an immense waste of time. I cannot see where good faith enters here: in this particular case TrevelyanL85A2 self identifies as a friend of yours. Since the area covered by WP:ARBR&I is rife with meatpuppets and sockpuppets, I doubt very much that any administrators or arbitrators would be sympathetic with measures which you (and previously Captain Occam) seek to put in place, the only result of which would be to make it easier for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to go undetected. Before WP:ARBR&I, there was no history of serial sockpuppetry in the topic area (apart from the easily recognizable sockpuppets of Muntuwandi). Since the close of that case, things have been very different. Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of a topic ban on R&I is being discussed in WP:AE#Ferahgo_the_Assassin. I am not sure if you were already aware of this. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The topic of Race and Intelligence is covered by discretionary sanctions

[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

If you wish, you can join the discussion at WP:AE#Ferahgo the Assassin, where your name has already been mentioned. I notice that you have not edited on the topic of race and intelligence since 3 January, which is why I have not proposed any sanctions. It is probably best if you avoid the topic area, since your acquaintance with Ferahgo would otherwise raise concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

[edit]

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

R&I Review

[edit]

This is to inform you that you have today been added as a party to the above arbitration case and that there are findings and remedies concerning you, to which you may wish to respond.  Roger Davies talk 23:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review Closed

[edit]

The arbitration review of the Race and Intelligence case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Mathsci (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct
  2. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
  3. SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.
  4. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.


For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

Some advice you may like to consider in the aftermath of the R&I review. FtA was given similar advice [9] but chose not to take it, and everything predicted in that message has happended. Anyway, I suggest that you consider simply dropping your current user name, adopting a new one with no references to external identities and continue editing as before under the new name. You should not make any kind of link between them on-wiki, but equally it would be imperative that you privately communicate the link to AC and assure them that you intend to respect the restrictions applicable to your current name while they are in force. Assure AC that you reject the imputations of proxy-editing in the past and give them your assurance that you will be sure not to do anything of the kind in the future. Make it clear that you would regard continued oppositional research and linking your old and new usernames on the pretext of finding or holding evidence on-wiki as harassment. Good luck. 94.197.162.237 (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

[edit]

You have violated your topic ban. I have requested enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrevelyanL85A2. You may review and comment, as you may "within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrevelyanL85A2 Nobody Ent 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. MastCell Talk 22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

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).

TrevelyanL85A2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reason given below. This is an AE block, so I'd like my appeal to please be posted at AE for review. If possible, I'd like the two other editors involved in the dispute that led to my block (Nyttend and Collect) to also be notified. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as this wasn't really an unblock request. Your appeal has been copied to WP:AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 9 June 2012 (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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[edit]

Appeal declined at WP:AE: [11]. MastCell Talk 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

As this page has been the subject of edit-warring over a banned editor's comments, I've protected it for the remainder of the WP:AE block. The block appeal has been declined at WP:AE, and further appeals (if any) can be submitted via email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, to the Arbitration Committee via email, or to an individual Arbitrator via email. MastCell Talk 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Hello. You have broken your topic ban in a very serious way. I have filed a report at WP:AE. Please respond there a.s.a.p. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further ArbCom requests

[edit]

Just letting you know that, regardless of the outcome at AE, I do intend to make a request regarding your situation and so you should avoid the temptation to do it yourself. Gonna be occupied for the next week though, so I will not be doing anything major like that until then.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before I proceed, I would like to know if you object to me sending the e-mail to members of ArbCom should it be raised as an issue. Allowing me to clear up what was sent to me in case I am accused of proxying would be reassuring.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for amendment

[edit]

I have made a request to amend the ARBR&I case regarding the restriction against you. Given the nature of the restriction, I would ask that you avoid commenting unless it is requested by an Arb.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Arb has requested your response to a question. For your own sake, and to minimize disruption, I suggest that you limit your response strictly to what is being asked of you directly by the Arb. It is better if you stay out of the unfolding drama.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for amendment

[edit]

Hello, TrevelyanL86A2. You are invited to respond to some questions posted by Arbitrator Roger Davies on the Request for Amendment concerning the Race and intelligence arbitration case.

For the Arbitration Committee's Clerk Team, Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding that you were asked to comment, I feel you should all the same remove from your statement any allegations that are not strictly limited to what was asked by Roger. Specifically, I think everything after "I would object much less if it were done by an uninvolved admin" should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see how Roger Davies responds to what I said first. If he thinks my statement is unhelpful, I'll remove part of it as you suggested. However, I think I can read some things between the lines of his question that go beyond what he asked directly. His question to you suggests that he thinks Mathsci has no responsibility for this situation, and all that's going on is our fault. The new suggestion from Newyorkbrad indicates the same attitude, that everyone but Mathsci is the problem, because of us restoring Echigo Mole's posts in our user talk pages.
I appreciate the advice you've given me throughout this situation, but I also want it to be resolved. And I think that just restricting all of us from restoring Echigo Mole's posts in our user talk won't do anything to address the underlying problem. Mathsci's attention to me has completely sapped my energy to edit articles here, and I don't think restricting us from restoring Echigo Mole's posts will solve that. I don't know if I can get the arbitrators to understand the part of the problem for which Mathsci is responsible, but I want to try.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are topic-banned from R&I. You're not supposed to be restoring these posts. To be honest, you're lucky you weren't blocked for violating your topic-ban. The only thing that I have issue with this affair is why MathSci can't simply notify an uninvolved party to remove them. It seems to me that a lot of drama could have been avoided by simply asking someone else to remove them.
How about this for a novel solution? The next time a banned editor posts something to your page, why not delete it yourself with an edit summary of "Sorry, I'm topic-banned from discussing this"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, of the comments in question, only one directly pertained to R&I and it was a suggestion for a fully legit clean start following the topic ban. I do not think Trev's restoration of those comments in any way constituted a violation of the topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever the violation is, the point is that if TrevelyanL85A2 deletes the posts himself, everyone can avoid a lot of unnecessary drama. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci's removing of the posts isn't the only thing I object to. I also object to the other ways he's been trying to provoke me, that Devil's Advocate described here. This whole situation is the problem for me.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Arbs will consider an interaction ban, I don't know. But what I am saying is that there are two very easy ways to resolve at least this issue:
  1. MathSci simply asks an uninvolved admin to remove the posts.
  2. You remove the posts yourself.
One of you needs to be the bigger person. There seems to be a lot of drama for a situation that is so easy to resolve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if the posts didn't have to be removed at all.  I've always felt anyone should be able to post in my user talk, even socks, as long as they are civil and don't violate any policies.  If ArbCom rules that isn't allowed anymore, as Newyorkbrad suggested, then I might remove the posts myself.  I don't know.  I don't like removing something that I actually think should be able to stay there.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

[edit]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

[edit]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

[edit]

Hello. Your topic ban prohibits you from discussing me or my edits on wikipedia. You did so today in a posting on User talk:The Devil's Advocate and have therefore been reported at WP:AE for violating your topic ban. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

Per the clear consensus of several fellow administrators at WP:AE, I have imposed an indefinite block. The first year of this counts as Arbcom enforcment under the existing WP:ARBR&I sanctions and will be logged as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your e-mail

[edit]

Just letting you know that I received your recent e-mail. I do think that you didn't need to notify me and get yourself blocked over that matter as I would have noticed the discussion eventually anyway, though your concern is appreciated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -SightWatcher (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (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).

TrevelyanL85A2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been over a year since I was blocked, so the arbitration enforcement part of my block is over, and I'd like to be able to edit articles again. Circumstances have recently changed so that there isn't a danger I'll violate my interaction ban anymore. If possible I would like my unblock request to be handled by a member of ArbCom, because they will be familiar with the circumstances under which I was blocked, and will understand what's different now. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: in order to ensure that your appeal is considered by a member of Arbcom, your best course is to email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee - see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee for instructions and advice. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2013 (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).

TrevelyanL85A2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block was recently discussed on the admin IRC channel, and I was told to use the unblock template in my user talk. It's been over a year since I was blocked, so I'm no longer under an arbitration enforcement block. If unblocked, I promise to abide by my interaction ban, and to not participate in race and intelligence articles anymore. I'd like to get back to editing the other topics that I used to edit, like video games and military topics. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Purely procedural, and this shouldn't be construed as an attempt to reject your request. Since this is being discussed, the request shouldn't be accepted here and shouldn't be rejected here, and removing your talk page from Category:Requests for unblock is the best way to ensure that. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2014 (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.

Amendment request concerning you

[edit]

I have opened an arbitration amendment request that involves you here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

[edit]

Per the discussion at WP:AN, I have unblocked you. Please remember that all previously imposed editing restrictions remain in force, including your topic ban, and restrictions on interaction with certain other editors [12]. Editors have also expressed some concern about your past propensity for wiki-litigation, I would strongly urge you to avoid controversial areas beyond just those you are topic banned from, and only pursue enforcement action in the most unambiguous cases, if at all. If it becomes an issue again, you could end up reblocked. Monty845 12:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, I hope you stay a while. Chillum 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fair and rational decision. I'll remember this --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A side note that since you're now unblocked, you are free to remove the {{unblock reviewed}} templates if you feel that they are unsightly. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for amendment closed without action

[edit]

The request for amendment relating to the Race and intelligence case has been archived without action

The original discussion can be found here For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formality.

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Race and intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

[edit]

A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Amendment request: Race and intelligence (May 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

User group for Military Historians

[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

[edit]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

[edit]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

[edit]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&oldid=1184577402"