User talk:Since 10.28.2010

LOOK
'POST ALL COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM, OR THEY WILL BE REMOVED. Signed, An   editor since 10.28.2010. '

Blocked from editing
Since 10.28.2010, I have been your mentor for 11 days. When I took the role on, I explained to you that you were close to being indefinitely blocked, which you acknowledged. As part of the mentorship process, I've given you many suggestions of ways to improve at your adoption page, discussing them with you if you disagree. However, you have decided to stop engaging with these suggestions - asking why you should care.

I expect this is all part of a "temper tantrum", which we were discussing - I specifically stated that I would take a zero-tolerance approach to temper tantrums and you confirmed that you understood. We went on to discuss your most recent temper tantrum - where you initially refused to accept you were in the wrong. You went on to indicate that you "don't care" that you were in the wrong, you just wanted an answer.

Since this point, you have been unnecessarily confrontational on the reference desk and at a user talk (including showing disregard for guidelines), asking questions which appear to be designed to provoke a reaction ("trolling") - how to kill the president and what are farts made of.

Due to the problems mentioned above and also a pattern of disruptive editing habits:
 * Obfuscating history by refusing to archive, instead blanking sections of your talk page and including long strings of edits
 * Feigning ignorance I bow to you, Lord WTT ... Three (trillion) cheers for you! followed by where exactly did I use sarcasm? four hours later as a direct reply. You had feigned ignorance in the past - prior to my mentorship (under "more concerns")
 * Vast majority of article editing is updating sports scores as the game progresses - a minor violation of WP:NOTNEWS

I believe you have worn the patience of the community to the ground and my mentorship (along with Ryan Vesey's good faith) was your last chance to become a productive member of the community. I no longer believe that mentorship is a viable option and so I am summarily blocking you from editing wikipedia indefinitely. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail.


 * I honestly don't believe that you were asked by the University to find the answers to those questions. Wikipedia is generally an area to use as a starting point for research but is unacceptable to use for scholarly purposes.  I would also assume anyone in a University would have the ability to check pages for something as simple as the composition of flatulence.  I think this edit seals the deal as to whether or not you should be unblocked.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly? I asked a simple question, which I didn't know the answer to. I wasn't going to attempt if the answer was no (which it was, so I didn't attempt).  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the flatulence: I wanted an answer, and I wasn't trolling. I actually wanted an answer, not a reaction. That's why the section header was “ Fart. Erm, flatulence”. I didn't realize that you can't use Wikipedia for those purposes, and no, the university unfortuneately does not have books on composition of flatulence. As for the other question, I just wanted the previous assassination attempts used. On a lighter note, thank you for answering that question.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I turned off your talkpage access as you are timewasting.Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Since 10.28.2010, If you are still reading this talk page, let me share some thoughts with you: As it says at the guide to appealing blocks, the only way to get a block lifted is to persuade the reviewing admin that you will no longer disrupt Wikipedia (or that you did not in fact do so to begin with). As you can see above, you are having no success persuading anyone that you did not disrupt Wikipedia; so it remains for you to acknowledge that you did it and give assurance that you won’t do it again. If you seriously don’t understand yet that you disrupted, please try harder to understand. It would do no good to persuade people the you do not understand, for that would just mean that you lack the social competence to work with other editors, which itself is a reason to reject your appeal. —teb728 t c 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk Removal
user:Looie496 has removed one of your contributions of the reference desk. It is being discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. Buddy432 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a hero
Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.231.129.76 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason Stoffel listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jason Stoffel. Since you had some involvement with the Jason Stoffel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)