User talk:Waveclaira


 * Note to other admins. This page is in reverse chronological order. The block is at the bottom, and each unblock request/decline goes up the page with the latest at the top (just under this comment). This is because the user kept insisting on placing each unblock request at the top of the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

comment: i dont like how https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waveclaira&diff=514671954&oldid=514671598 tried to purposely and intentionally put my unblock request at the bottom where it cannot be seen when the guideline says it should be one top. i dont like this at all. this is bad. this is an example of lack of responsibility of these editors. it isnt a part of the above, but it's important to note. Waveclaira (talk)


 * Guide to appealing blocks states quite clearly:
 * "To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: ."
 * It's even underlined. The reason for this is to keep the block notices, unblock requests and block reviews in chronological order. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * all these are my reasons. you're not giving any specifics that directly addresses the problems so you shouldnt be reviewing this. the gab is also way to long and i dont have time like that. you have to give specific reasons if you're going to decline.

Waveclaira (talk)


 * Please stop editing and re-editing your unblock requests. You're making it nearly impossible for anyone to respond to you with the rapid series of edits you're making. This process works much better if you say everything you need to say in one edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * you see this? i have no policy citated for this. it's not "nearly impossible" -- and this works just fine since if i need to make edits for clarification and the comment is basically trying to obstruct me from it. this wikipedia project would work a lot if you didnt post these demands when you have already shown me i cannot trust you for your one-sided lack of responsibility. even though you dont cite any policy, i really cant be wasting time like this. and just in case it wasnt clear -- This whole project would work much better if you didnt make demands that is not directly progressing wikipedia's content. since i just cant take this, i wont make any further comments (since nobody cares anyway)

Waveclaira (talk)
 * I'm sorry, I guess I didn't explain that clearly - I wasn't saying there's some abstract policy that disallows you from editing your unblock requests, I was saying that from a technical standpoint, if you're continually editing this page, no one ELSE can edit it to respond to you, because the software doesn't allow that to happen. Now, I've restored jpgordon's decline of your unblock, which you had moved out of the unblock request template. Please don't do that again - you can respond to his decline as you wish, outside the template, but the unblock request itself and the response by an admin must stay in it (that one is a rule - you can't remove an unblock decline by someone else just because you don't like it). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about -- it's stil there -- i told you already i dont trust you so you should Stop bothering me by this point since you're only causing more problems

Waveclaira (talk)

September 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. v/r - TP 14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts

 * Indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Talk page revoked for troll like behavior during the unblock process.  CU indicated possible link to Dualus, but the contribs, particularly the starting ones, definitively indicate that this is a sock of someone who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a collegiate manner.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a new editor who doesn't properly comment changes—moved a lot of US-specific material from the Internet privacy article to the talk page, and didn't sign the talk page, so it would seem at first glance that the editor had deleted a mass of material, because there were no edit summary comments indicating that it had been moved to the talk page. LittleBen (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I trust Dennis Brown's assesment that this is not a new user.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Was only active for about a month, and didn't seem to know how to create a new page for all the US-specific stuff moved from the Internet privacy article to the talk page. Does not understand that WP guidelines like Identifying reliable sources are special, and does not seem to know what an RfC is. LittleBen (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)