Skater 2015

This is Phenomer's user talk page. Please leave a message below the line.

---

Second chance request

Hello, I've recently been made aware by the user himself and two eswiki users (User:Lcsrns & User:Miss Manzana) who poked me about the matter that this user is already blocked on a previous account here for vandalism. The user has expressed what seems to me genuine intention to not return to his old ways and contribute productively. I don't see any point in blocking the user, as it was his own disclosure that brought this matter to my notice and he would have probably been able to edit productively without telling anybody had he chosed to do so. I've pasted below this short statement of mine the second chance template. While this user isn't currently blocked on this account, and I feel silly if I were to block it while its contributions have been productive, the linkset is still userful. I have notified the original blocking admin and the other users involved in discussing this user's actions, they are more familiar with this matter than I and will be able to more positively contribute to this discussion and process than me. The previous user's identity, per the user's admission of his own free will was User:Sk8rSoda. It would be very much desirable that the user himself wrote here their intent, actions, etc in their own words, it's much more useful to hear stuff from you than a summary from me :) Concluding, I feel Wikipedia may be better served by not blocking this users who freely confessed to being a formerly blocked user and letting him edit productively, should he return to his old ways it takes but a moment to block him again. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
• If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
    • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
    • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
    • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
    • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.

• Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Second Chance Request, my words

I admit my wrong-doing in the past. There was peer-pressure involved when I was vandalizing under User:Sk8rSoda. The peer pressure was involved with User:JohnRunsCanada, in a virtual competition of who could vandalize worse. I remember it was under IP 206.180.109.118,which is currently banned, that the vandalism happened. --Phenomer TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 01:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Phenomer: As I, having more or less your same age, have already told you, that is not excuse (the peer-pressure thing). But as I also said before, I strongly believe you should be unblock, because although you vandalized, lied to us (even today in the IRC) and evaded the blocking of your old user, I think you are sorry of your actions and eager to help, if not you wouldn't have created a new account to make good edits. Besides, when you started talking in the spanish channel, you relationated very well, and seem a good kid eager to help. I hope you don't disappoint us and make Miss Manzana, Snowolf and my efforts a waste of time. I really think this user deserves a chance. Greetings, Lcsrns (Talk) 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Now my message. Phenomer, when I heard your story, I thought your block was fair, but now I see, for the things we talked at IRC that you are really sorry for your misbehaviour, so I think you deserve a new opportunity to make things right. If this had happened at eswiki, I would have unblocked you because I believe in you and I also think you have learnt something of this experience. Regards, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (let's talk) 02:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I previously declined an unblock request for this person's former username (see User talk:Sk8rSoda) because they admitted that they were unable to secure their account from use by other people. Completely irrespective of his ability to behave himself now, we're going to need to know, as a very first step, whether his account is now secure from being accidentally left logged in, from friends having the password, and from "peer pressure" inducing him to edit poorly (I'm especially concerned about this because in his previous request, the user stressed that due to mental issues, he was prone to doing things he knows are wrong even while he knows they're wrong). A change of heart is a wonderful thing, but a change of heart cannot help if his account is still insecure or if he is still unable to resist the impulse to take actions he knows are wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• It was the fact that the User:Sk8rSoda account was compromised that meant it could not be unblocked, so I think starting a new account is acceptable in this case. The editor has been open about it, there is no attempt to deceive, this is not block evasion, and the previous account had been productive until the hacking event. It is important to be sure this new account is more secure, so a statement about that would be useful - perhaps only use the account at home and not at school? Anyway, I don't think any admin action is needed right now - any future hacking/vandalism should be quickly detected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, one of the problems is that he was never "hacked". I realized by how he contradicted himself, that he was lying in the IRC, I offered to help him but told him that first he had to say the truth. He confessed he had never been hacked and that he had done the vandalism under «peer-pressure». Having "confessed", been sorry of his sock-puppetry, his lying and vandalism and most important of all, looking forward to do good edits and eager to contribute, I decided to help him. Although I want this user to have one more opportunity and know this can damage the situation, I thought it was correct to say what really happened. Sorry of having forgotten before (I had the sensation I had mentioned it), with lying I meant that. --Lcsrns (Talk) 02:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that the user himself would explain the situation in his own words as he did on IRC, which is what I asked him to do in my statement :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation. I agree it's best to say here what happened - and I think I do still support a second chance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Firefox-18-Linux-Wikipedia-Screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading File:Firefox-18-Linux-Wikipedia-Screenshot.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can I ask on which operating system and which version of this screenshot is taken? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I took the screenshot in Ubuntu 12.10, and the image was of Firefox 18.0--Skater 2015 TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)