User talk:Mandrake00

May 2013
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Veganism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rklawton (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for 3RR; multiple accounts, as you did at Veganism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rklawton (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia: End Administratorship. Revoke All so called "Administrator" rights or be doomed. You are sending away contributors and letting the so called "administrators" misuse their rights.

Jpgordon, Yunshui and Anthony Bradbury, I thought about this account minutes ago after seeing the Veganism article pop back up on my WP:Watchlist with this edit; I thought about it because Rklawton's indefinite block of this editor never sat well with me. Do see User talk:Rklawton/Archive 4#User:Mandrake00‎ and 3RR and what Alison stated in that short discussion; I am the editor who brought the block to her attention, via email (the one she refers to in that discussion on that matter). While Mandrake00 shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including by the unblock requests above (though the third unblock request is the best), keep in mind that, by looking at Mandrake00's very brief edit history, it's easy to see that Mandrake00 is essentially a WP:Newbie. Is indefinitely blocking a WP:Newbie for a WP:3RR violation, when that WP:Newbie has otherwise contributed okay-ish to Wikipedia, a good thing in your opinions? I would rather Mandrake00‎ use the Mandrake00‎ account and improve as a Wikipedian instead of WP:Sockpuppet and not improve.

SlimVirgin, Viriditas, SummerPhD, Betty Logan, Alexbrn and Helpsome, all usual editors of the Veganism article/talk page, do you have anything to state on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not the sole reason for this block; check the block log. An indef block was necessary and appropriate to prevent continued disruption, as Mandrake00's subsequent postings have demonstrated, and I endorse Rklawton's original block. Mandrake00 is free to request unblock on this page, should he tire of using it to host his rants. However, continued unblock requests like the ones above will see his access to edit this page removed as well. Newbie or not, if you don't abide by the rules you don't get to edit here. Yunshui 雲 水 11:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yunshui, yes, I know that the block log states, "Violation of the three-revert rule: 3rr; multiple accounts; disruptive editing." But Mandrake00 was not WP:Sockpuppeting; Mandrake00 was editing as an IP and then logged into his account; the reason that his editing was WP:Disruptive is because he was removing/changing content without explaining his edits and WP:Edit warring. Otherwise, it is a content dispute. We have a lot of Wikipedians that have been blocked a few times or a lot of times, which shows that editors who have not abided by the rules have had chance after chance to edit here. And yet this editor is indefinitely blocked? It is one of the worst blocks I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree here, I'm afraid; I don't think it's a bad block at all. The appeals above have only served to convince me that Rklawton was right to make this an indef in the first place. The standard offer is available to Mandrake00, and if he would like to compose an SO unblock request I'll happily put it to the community on his behalf; however any request for an unblock needs to come from the blocked editor. Yunshui 雲 水 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many WP:Newbies have made unblock requests like Mandrake00's unblock requests; Mandrake00 needs a lot of mentoring in Wikipedia ways. Yes, agree to disagree because this remains one of the worst blocks for reasons that Alison and I have made clear. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And many - all, I would guess - such requests have been turned down. We have a lengthy guide to composing an unblock appeal, and appeals which conform to the recommendations there are usually granted. Appeals which fail to address the issues raised and simply claim unfairness, bias and abuse are declined, always.
 * In any case, no administrator is going to unblock Mandrake00 as a result of your appeals - while I appreciate your concerns (even if I disagree with your conclusion) and applaud your willingness to step in and offer your opinion, the fact is that until Mandrake00 himself addresses the issues raised and composes an appeal, the block isn't going to be lifted. Yunshui 雲 水 12:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unblocking is one thing; softening the block length is another. While I appreciate you giving your opinion on the matter, there was nothing at all valid about the block; even in the case that Mandrake00 is unblocked and it turns out that he should be indefinitely blocked again, it would not make that original block a good block. Just as your opinion on this matter won't be changing, neither will mine. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Mandrake00 has satisfied jpgordon's requirements. It's not worth considering unblocking a user who is so unwilling to make even the smallest effort. Rklawton (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Phi compen cct.JPG


The file File:Phi compen cct.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)