User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:34, 12 March 2012

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ShmuckatellieJoe, 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:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! . ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ShmuckatellieJoe. You have new messages at Acdixon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse invitation

Hello! ShmuckatellieJoe, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rosie but I think I'm just gonna keep to myself for a while. I've been reading some pretty outrageous discussions on the various project pages and I think I need to just keep my head down and stay out of the line of fire. Every ware I go it seems like fire and brimstone. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Joe. (Hope it's ok to call you that.) Just know I'm available for you if you have a question; and ditto for the Teahouse hosts. For as many fire and brimstone folks, there are twice as many nice ones. I hope you get a sense of who they are, too. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I'll keep that in mind. I am sure I will have plenty of questions as I go along depending on how long it takes to run into one of the less than friendly editors I have been reading about. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! I'm just here to say hi and second Rosiestep's comment - the Teahouse is a safe place to share inquiries, concerns and questions. We're here to help...and give you a nice cup of warm Wiki-tea! See you there sometime, I hope. Sarah (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Yes, it can get ugly around here. Keep you head down for the first few months is a good idea as it will help you get the lay of the land. It also helps to stay away from controversial subjects. For the most part, it is a good place with alot of helpful and great people. If you need any help, don't hesitate to give me a buzz on my talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a lengthy reply on my talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

The feedback feature is still experimental, so there's going to be some flaws. Sorry.

Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, ShmuckatellieJoe. You have new messages at Achowat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Etiquette

I've got no problem with editors doing a clean start with a new account, but it does seem a little mean to take up the time of helpful editors like Acdixon by pretending to be someone who doesn't know how to do things. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. So is it normally acceptable to accuse a new editor of being someone they are not? Frankly, if this is normally how new users are treated I am surprised that Wikipedia has lasted as long as it has. If you feel I have done something wrong or if you think I am Kumioko socking then feel free to ban me and prevent me from contributing. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and I both know what's going on, let's not be silly. If I'd wanted to toss out a socking block I'd have done so. But personally I'd rather let productive editors edit. All I'm asking is that you not waste other editors' time by asking them questions you already know the answer to. Fair enough? 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with this place? I'm sure your used to editors who want to stay, beg for their accounts to be left alone. I'm not that vested! I've only been here for a couple weeks. I am perfectly happy to let this go and continue editing but I'm not going to fight for it. If Wikipedia wants me to continue contributing great, I will be happy too, if not then I can sit and watch a football game, play Xbox or any number of other things. Think what you want but I'm not that editor and I suspect if you could actually prove it you would have blocked me already. I'm really not mad about this, I'm just somewhat surprised and disappointed that we are wasting so much hard drive space in discussions like this instead of editing and building an encyclopedia. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, all I asked you to do was to clean-start responsibly, i.e. by not wasting other editors' time with "newbie" questions. Since you're not willing to agree to that, and since you're simultaneously continuing on to fight as Kumioko under the 71.* IP address, I've blocked you for a week. Please, please, please take this week to read and understand the policies on multiple accounts. I'm also going to post a thread to AN/I about this. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Totally fine since I am not that user but I see how things are handled now here so its all good. Kumioko already stated they were the 71 IP and I stated I used teh 138. If you want to block me though the message is clear to me and understood. I won't be editing anymore. Just for FYI, I noticed dashboat had a problem with some pages and I was about to drop that bots operator a message and let him know. You can mark me down on the inactive editors list. BTW, I think the system is poorly designed that you can open a discussion at ANI and then block the user(s) from being able to comment there. Thats like taking someone to court and then telling them that they are not allowed to speak or present any evidence on their behalf. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you wouldn't insult my intelligence. Seriously. 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I will unblock you for the sole purpose of commenting in the AN/I discussion. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries you all go on and have your chat. Like I said I don't really care because your not hurting me. Just a suggestion, you might also want to block Kumi-taskbot. It also might interest you to know that IP 138 is a proxy for about half the US navy so blocking it prevents about 200, 000 people from editing. One final note, I think you need to ask a checkuser to validate my user name. It might be interesting to see if that comes back as a match and that might give your case some credibility rather than just heresay and speculation! ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no need now, it looks like everyone already passed judgement. I can see why Kumioko got so pissed off. All those years of work and loyalty to the project and now all it takes is one editor to say that I am associated to them and the lynch mob gathers fer da hangin'. You all are ridiculous and should be ashamed of yourselves. Why on Earth would anyone want to participate in this Soap opera? I recommend you go ahead and block this account indefinately and I also think you should do a SPI. Definately need to do an SPI, might be a whole bunch more users "posing" as Kumioko. Hundreds or thousands of them I'll bet. I'm sure while he was racking up that massive edit count and doing all that work around the project he was actually posing as multiple users. Maybe even you, how do we know your not Kumioko? Maybe I'm really Jimbo posing to see how you would react, Maybe Jimbo is Kumioko and has been posing as an editor all along. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, neither Jimbo nor I have signed a post as "formerly Kumioko". 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contest block

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

ShmuckatellieJoe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't going to contest this but its so absurd that I find that I simply can't allow this farse to continue. For that many editors to turn on so quickly with nothing but a notion that they are a sock of a long time editor, one of their own. Its utterly discraceful. I also request an SPI investigation. If you think I am Kumioko I want to see something more tangible than a malformed edit history that was reverted as Vandalism, reverted by an IP and then reverted again by FRAM. Certainly you can provide some better evidence to support your conclusion than that! And this lousy Wiki software doesn't even allow an editor to make a comment. Completely stupid. Someone should fix the software so the accused can at least comment on their behalf in a discussion like this. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I wasn't going to contest this but its so absurd that I find that I simply can't allow this farse to continue. For that many editors to turn on so quickly with nothing but a notion that they are a sock of a long time editor, one of their own. Its utterly discraceful. I also request an SPI investigation. If you think I am Kumioko I want to see something more tangible than a malformed edit history that was reverted as Vandalism, reverted by an IP and then reverted again by FRAM. Certainly you can provide some better evidence to support your conclusion than that! And this lousy Wiki software doesn't even allow an editor to make a comment. Completely stupid. Someone should fix the software so the accused can at least comment on their behalf in a discussion like this. [[User:ShmuckatellieJoe|ShmuckatellieJoe]] ([[User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe#top|talk]]) 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I wasn't going to contest this but its so absurd that I find that I simply can't allow this farse to continue. For that many editors to turn on so quickly with nothing but a notion that they are a sock of a long time editor, one of their own. Its utterly discraceful. I also request an SPI investigation. If you think I am Kumioko I want to see something more tangible than a malformed edit history that was reverted as Vandalism, reverted by an IP and then reverted again by FRAM. Certainly you can provide some better evidence to support your conclusion than that! And this lousy Wiki software doesn't even allow an editor to make a comment. Completely stupid. Someone should fix the software so the accused can at least comment on their behalf in a discussion like this. [[User:ShmuckatellieJoe|ShmuckatellieJoe]] ([[User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe#top|talk]]) 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I wasn't going to contest this but its so absurd that I find that I simply can't allow this farse to continue. For that many editors to turn on so quickly with nothing but a notion that they are a sock of a long time editor, one of their own. Its utterly discraceful. I also request an SPI investigation. If you think I am Kumioko I want to see something more tangible than a malformed edit history that was reverted as Vandalism, reverted by an IP and then reverted again by FRAM. Certainly you can provide some better evidence to support your conclusion than that! And this lousy Wiki software doesn't even allow an editor to make a comment. Completely stupid. Someone should fix the software so the accused can at least comment on their behalf in a discussion like this. [[User:ShmuckatellieJoe|ShmuckatellieJoe]] ([[User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe#top|talk]]) 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 :::::::::Certainly no need now, it looks like everyone already passed judgement. I can see why Kumioko got so pissed off. All those years of work and loyalty to the project and now all it takes is one editor to say that I am associated to them and the lynch mob gathers fer da hangin'. You all are ridiculous and should be ashamed of yourselves. Why on Earth would anyone want to participate in this Soap opera? I recommend you go ahead and block this account indefinately and I also think you should do a SPI. Definately need to do an SPI, might be a whole bunch more users "posing" as Kumioko. Hundreds or thousands of them I'll bet. I'm sure while he was racking up that massive edit count and doing all that work around the project he was actually posing as multiple users. Maybe even you, how do we know your not Kumioko? Maybe I'm really Jimbo posing to see how you would react, Maybe Jimbo is Kumioko and has been posing as an editor all along. [[User:ShmuckatellieJoe|ShmuckatellieJoe]] ([[User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe#top|talk]]) 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 ::::::::::As far as I know, neither Jimbo nor I have signed a post as "formerly Kumioko". [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
+===Contest block===
+{{unblock|I wasn't going to contest this but its so absurd that I find that I simply can't allow this farse to continue. For that many editors to turn on so quickly with nothing but a notion that they are a sock of a long time editor, one of their own. Its utterly discraceful. I also request an SPI investigation. If you think I am Kumioko I want to see something more tangible than a malformed edit history that was reverted as Vandalism, reverted by an IP and then reverted again by FRAM. Certainly you can provide some better evidence to support your conclusion than that! And this lousy Wiki software doesn't even allow an editor to make a comment. Completely stupid. Someone should fix the software so the accused can at least comment on their behalf in a discussion like this. [[User:ShmuckatellieJoe|ShmuckatellieJoe]] ([[User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe#top|talk]]) 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)}}