User talk:Amaury/2012/April

2012 Archive Index: April • May •  June •  July

Unblock request
I'm going to contact Beeblebrox who blocked you in December 2010. You have quite a lengthy block log but I see most of those were in a short period in early 2009. The Standard offer may apply. -- RA (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)}}
 * (background information and previous discussions related to this block are at User talk:Amaury/2010/December) I'm not so sure the terms of the standard offer have been met. What I'm not seeing is the productive editing on another wiki. You registered an account at Simple, and while you don't appear to have had trouble that is probably becuase nearly every edit you made was in your own userspace, an issue you had here as well. I still wonder if you understand that what we are working on here is not a social networking site that is all about updating one's status, having flashy user and talk pages, and using overly elaborate archiving and indexing. This is a project to build an encyclopedia, it's not about the people doing the work. However, I might be inclined to agree with an unblock if you are able to do the following:
 * Explain in your own words why you were blocked. You don't really address this at all in your request.
 * Detail what you would do in the future to avoid similar problems.
 * It would also be nice if you could commit to editing the actual project more than your own user page, status updater, etc. As mentioned above that really isn't what this site is about and if you really have matured I expect you would understand that.

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was banned because I edit-warred after being warned during my last ban that, if I ever edit-warred again, you would permanently ban me.
 * To avoid similar problems, instead of simply reverting, unless it's obvious vandalism, I would raise the issue up on the talk page and have a discussion.
 * Yes, that's what I plan on doing, should I be unbanned. I'll just put a little about myself in a way that doesn't require so many updates and just update sometimes or when the need arises, such as if I need to change some information, fix a typo, etc., and should there come a time where I need to update more often, I'll do it at night before going to bed. That way, I can spend the day contributing to Wikipedia (fixing typos, homonym errors, grammar, adding more information to articles I know about, etc.) and leaving the low priority stuff for the night, such as updates.
 * Looking forward to hearing back from you, and if you have any comments regarding my answers, don't hesitate to discuss. - Amaury (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "...nearly every edit you made was in your own userspace, an issue you had here as well. I still wonder if you understand that what we are working on here is not a social networking site that is all about updating one's status ..." - I second this. Your contributions are full (actually FULL) of edits like this:
 * 15:15, 19 November 2010 - I'm online.
 * 18:50, 19 November 2010 - Offline -- I'm going to school.
 * 00:04, 20 November 2010 - I'm back; I'm online.
 * 07:08, 20 November 2010 - Offline -- I'm going to bed,
 * 16:16, 20 November 2010 - I'm online.
 * 17:16, 20 November 2010 - Away -- we're going grocery shopping and will be back later.
 * 18:22, 20 November 2010 - I'm back.
 * 20:31, 20 November 2010 - Update! I forgot that I got banned on the PSUPedia forums November 1st, so I am removing the PSUPedia links.
 * 55% of your edits were to user or the user talk namespaces. Nobody cares if you are going grocery shopping. This is not Facebook or Twitter. If the standard offer is going to be given then I would request that a condition be that you turn turn off whatever software you are using to update you "status" and that you instead focus exclusively on improving articles. -- RA (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I got the idea from another user, actually, regarding online status, but, yes, I plan on stopping that (or at least keeping it less important and contributing to Wikipedia more, as in just changing it without an edit reason and that likes). I used to do the same thing on MySpace before I deleted it. I also have a Facebook, and I did the same thing there, but shortly after being banned on Wikipedia, it just got to be time consuming and a pain to remember to change it or to forget because I fell asleep earlier than usual or something. I'll most likely just stop completely, though. - Amaury (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, stop it completely and focus solely on article development. If you think it is of benefit to others, updating your user page once-a-night (and only once-a-night), like you suggest above, is not a bad idea. I can agree to that, particularly, if you consider focusing these updates on the work you did on Wikipedia that day (e.g. the articles you improved, how you improved them, what new policies your read, what templates you learn to use, etc.). -- RA (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just stop it completely, then, since I would have to put it as online in the morning when I wake up, then to away for school, then back to online when I'm back, then offline for bed, and repeat the next day. I think it'll be better, like you said, to just remove the status code completely. - Amaury (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm ok with an unblock so long as you understand that if you ever engage in edit warring again you will be blocked again and your chance of ever being unblocked will be basically zero. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand completely. Thank you, Beeblerox. I will do my best to earn the community's faith again. - Amaury (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)