User talk:Michael N Cooper


 * The above was perhaps a bit harsh but certainly the summary on this edit shows that you have not yet learned how to read an edit history. Also you need to learn about categories and not create new categories at random. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk!
This edit tells me something else that you have not yet learned - this, your user_talk page, is for people to leave you messages. It should not be redirected. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For that matter, user_talk stuff doesn't belong on the user page. I've removed it.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I want it to stay. Thank you. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It stays. Period. Got a problem son? Take it to admin. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have. User:Michael N Cooper is not your talk page. User talk:Michael N Cooper is.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you know what to do. Goodbye. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Laun chba  ller  21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Cats
I was pleased to see this edit but I disagree with the edit summary. Putting yourself in the category: page was a total deviation from standards and hopeless vanity. I challenge you to find one person who approves of the immediately preceding edit. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling and not being here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to 1st decline

 * I think you're right that you've made a few good contributions, though your behavior in edit summaries (and in deleted edits) is concerning. I'm willing to give you a second chance if you can promise to behave in a civil manner towards other editors. Of course, if this behavior continues, it'll confirm Bbb23's belief you're not here to edit constructively. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm not in favor of unblocking at this time. I think the user should wait at least six months. There are many vandals who are blocked for VOA but still do a few constructive edits. The reasons for the phenomenon vary by editor. I'd at least like to hear from and, both of whom declined the requests. If there's a consensus to unblock, I will, of course, defer to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I shall be civil towards all other editors, will focus only on decent edits, and will carry out no more tests. A promise. Michael N Cooper (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23--fair enough. I think John's new decline above is right. If the user takes some time off Wikipedia and returns without trying to evade the block, I think they'll be more successful in getting it lifted. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)