User talk:Weirdingmodule

Welcome!

Hello, Weirdingmodule, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Addition to Park51
Just a note so your aware, we just had a Request for Comment, open to the Wikipedia community, to settle how the lede should read, and consensus was overwhelmingly for the version now featured in the article. I have no problem with you addition if it is placed in, say, the 'Controversy' section, but the lede represents a consensus of editors and shouldn't be messed with until you can show consensus has shifted. -- ۩ M ask  12:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put the text in, merely corrected it from 'Some' to 'Many' and cited the latter. Not fussed if it stays or goes, what was there previously was POV-pushing, I felt, in that 'some' indicated one man and his dog (or another pet, perhaps; one not offensive to muslims, whom we must not offend at any time!) --Weirdingmodule (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Word. Sorry, had assumed you put it in, was trying to be helpful and suggest somewhere for it to go to head off the (i thought) inevitable 'zomg censorship!' complaint. Happy editing :) -- ۩ M ask  12:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No bother. I have strong views about the proposal itself but am able to devolve those from the wiki. Personally I hope they build it and someone then blows it up with demolition charges but that's a discussion for another time! Thanks for your suggestion. I will have a look at the 'contrversy' section and see if it needs a tweak. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
Want to tell me about your logging in and out to evade detection, your votestacking at AfD and you continued hounding of the Hullabaloo guy? - A l is o n  ❤ 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you mean. I am supposed to be a sock of an editor in the UK? Right... that makes sense. Very silly indeed, you've not even got the sex right. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I never gave any indications as to your geolocation, nor your sex. I really don't care, to be honest. What I can say with certainty, however, is that you've been repeatedly logging in and out to evade detection - over multiple IP ranges, you've been votestacking at AfD and you have some sort of beef with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz -  A l is o n  ❤ 09:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not been attempting to 'evade detection' as you put it. You cannot say that with 'certainty' unless you're me. Multiple IP ranges is nothing to do with me, speak to Qtel. Vote stacking? HW claimed than an !vote I made from an IP (I wasn't aware that it was against policy to not make edits wile not logged in was that of sock of a blocked user (Magpies1892) - which is NOT correct and so I voted again while logged in. Feel free to strike the IP vote? I can say with certainty that you are making false accusations and I would be obliged if you would unblock my account. Most certainly disassociate itself from the 'suspected socks' thing I am seeing relating to Magpies1892. Want to tell me about blocking people for no apparent reason? --Weirdingmodule (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC) How do I go about getting unblocked given that this: ‎ (Block evasion: Votestacking at AfD / Sock of User:Magpie1892) is at least 50% incorrect? Can you respond please? Thanks. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what I'm going to do is email the checkusers group here and ask for a second opinion on this. The rest of the admin team here won't undo a checkuser block without good reason, so I'm going to ask another CU to review this case. Hold on ... - A l is o n  ❤ 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK. I am not particularly active. I'll just use the IP. Can't tolerate being lied about. If having a problem with someone telling lies about you is a basis for a block then you can keep me blocked, and block a few more too as well if you have your muse! --Weirdingmodule (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone unblock this account if so minded. It's completely out of order. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the CU team again - A l is o n  ❤ 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look using the CheckUser function, and it's fairly clear that you logged out and edited as an IP to vote stack in an Articles for Deletion discussion. In this context, I don't think you should be unblocked. Also, your comment that you intend to evade the block: 'I'll just use the IP' doesn't help. PhilKnight (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, concur; regardless of the order of events, you participated in the same AfD multiple times. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that I voted twice on one AFD and I didn't log out to do do, I logged in because my IP !vote was incorrectly dismissed as being that of the sock of an indef blocked user, which was inaccurate. I made this point already. I recant the statement aboust using the IP; I was annoyed. I wish to be unblocked and the transgression does not, as far as the evidence elsewhere suggests, merit an indef ban. Far from it. And, I think you know this...

--Weirdingmodule (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC) With regard to the above, can someone please unblock this account? --Weirdingmodule (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)