Nerdy Community Dude

Hi. On my talk page, try to only ever edit your own comments. Never delete a comment just because it appears rude to me. I prefer to read everything. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Your first day editing and you choose to read people's minds and assign their actions motives without any prior communication? We'd really like your help with the articles; I'm thinking that would be more constructive than stirring up controversy. Tiderolls 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't know I was misrepresenting you, please forgive me!

If that edit was still there, I would delete the part where I speculated on your thoughts. But it's deleted.

Have a nice day!

PS: I'm far from a perfect person, we all know. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To anyone reading this: does my last sentence above make sense? I think it's grammatically correct, but it sounds odd. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Far from perfect" would be better. We know you're a person. Being far from a perfect one may mean there's one across the globe. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Heh, I must be one of those people with a habit of adding meaningless words which make my sentences long. Nerdy Community Dude ^{my edits}_talk 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop? Your comments aren't constructive, and are just getting in the way of discussing the real issue. You're not helping things. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for your time, but in my very honest opinion I feel they are constructive. I think most people find many other people's comments nonconstructive. It's a issue with any community: you're not going to like what some people have to say.

I think if I want to have a constructive discussion here, I should go into the details of why my comments are/aren't constructive, instead of just saying "my comments are constructive" or "my comments aren't constructive."

I know sometimes I don't like others' comments. It is a very frustrating feeling indeed. And when I can't get my message across that I don't like their comments, I feel bad. So I know you feel bad now. Sorry. I've been in your shoes before. But unfortunately this isn't something so simple, where you can simply give a polite note to me and I'll say "oh, sorry, I'll stop," because the thing is I think my comments are constructive. We can discuss as much as you'd like, as this is the internet. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if we're talking about the same thing or not. I'm saying, your comments at User talk:Lukejordan02 are getting in the way of actual discussion. You don't seem involved, no one's talking to you, and you're just kind of going about on your own personal musings while the editor is asking questions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess sometimes you're right, and no one's talking to me this time. Generally comments which no one responds to do not benefit the discussion. However, I can't ever guarantee people will respond to what I say, so, you know, the idea is to say things I think are constructive, and check if they are. Sometimes I'm wrong.

I agree it's very annoying to keep musing over one's own comments, distracting everyone else from talking. And I'm very sorry about that. I should learn not to reply more if my first reply is not listened to, that is indeed a huge room for improvement for me (albeit not the only one!). You're overall criticism of me in my opinion is constructive. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, although shame we had to stop otherwise the admin would have probably blocked us. Am sure Luke doesn't mind. He'd be excited to see the messages. Probably.  :)

147.143.95.28 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC) @147.143.95.28: Thanks! PS: your :) did not display properly heh. Also I wonder if my {{ping|147.143.95.28}} worked or not... Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! And nope, the ping back didn't work.

ty lol Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nerdy Community Dude, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nerdy Community Dude! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

Okay, you've been editing for almost a week now. I don't see a single edit to an article. Virtually ever edit is meddling in other people's affairs. What exactly is your purpose here? Im starting to get a vibe here... Care to prove me wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry.

• You're absolutely right. I haven't made a single edit to an article.
• My purpose here is not to edit articles.
• I can't prove anything

Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

...Is that your final word on things...? Conceding that you're not here to build an encyclopedia is going to get you blocked... Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to edit articles, but I am here to build an encyclopedia. Also, if there is a policy about having no edits to articles, I wouldn't mind you showing it here. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 23:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The problem is that all you do us meddle in others problems and complaining about the website. Can you explain to me your plans for building the encyclopedia? Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, my meddling amounts to contributing uninvolved input. But I know you disagree and feel it's simply meddling. I want to help with Wikipedia, but I'm not someone with farsighted plans for this. Thanks for chatting, I do actually like it when somebody's curious about me. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 00:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There are places where you can volunteer where people are actually looking for input. WP:VILLAGEPUMP, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC. RFC or VP is probably where is recommend starting. But if all you're going to do is replicate the actions of this past week, where you more or less just get in the way of others discussions, then you're going to be blocked, per WP:NOTHERE. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be helpful, but I honestly don't see why adding in people's talkpages would be more disruptive. Come to think about it, I would understand how people may find it acceptable to chat on people's talkpages but not those formal discussion forums. If my comments are spam, and they aren't helpful, the talk page owner should at least sometimes delete them, but I don't think that happened before. I don't think I'm getting in the way of discussions. But maybe I am. Maybe you're right. Because the truth is many people are better off not commenting on many discussions. Maybe I'm one of them. But everyone disagrees whose input is contributing and whose is not, so we should both bear with comments we don't like, and give others the benefit of doubt.

After all, you agree it's acceptable to give input, and even gave me helpful suggestions for better places in your opinion. So maybe you know all of this already and I'm just reiterating your position. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that so many of your comments are like this. It's far more focused on complaining about admin in general than actually solving any sort of problem. You're not helping conversations, you're commonly derailing them with semi-relevant musings and complaining. If that's going to be the extent of your "help", this isn't going to work out. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my personal comment to Lukejordan02. It's based on what I've seen, these things usually go ugly and I don't want him to be disappointed. Turns out I was actually wrong. In hindsight, I would not make this comment in particular if I knew the turnout. As it is a personal comment, the purpose is not to solve the admin problem I'm complaining about. That's an age old issue on the internet and I kind of feel I may be foolish to try... solving it.

I absolutely disagree that I'm derailing the conversations. I think to derail a conversation, one makes other people's points unclear and hinders the expected responses to questions. I was not doing that. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever words you want to use to describe, your commentary was neither helpful towards coming to a resolution, nor was it requested, nor did it involve you. Much like your comments on Luke's page today, or virtually any of the discussions you've entered here so far. Thus, why I am here. Im pretty certain you get what I'm driving at here. You've been given multiple alternate approaches here. The rest is up to you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You may think that I'm just acting like I don't understand what you mean--and if you're right--if that is indeed what I'm doing, I'd be a very annoying person. I understand how you'll be very frustrated given how you picture this discussion--as any human you should be. But you're wrong. I never pretended not to understand "what [you're] driving at here." Your point was very clear: I'm not helpful, and the discussions would be better off without me. You said it and I've summarized it before. The problem is, I continuously disagreed with it and I made counterpoints on how just because you (and other people here) disagree with how I add my input, doesn't show I have a problem.

I still want to thank you for taking some of your time to compile a list of alternative approaches. But I feel maybe if I only comment on one of WP:VILLAGEPUMP, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC, I wouldn't be much more welcome, and some people like you from there will think that's not right of me.

Also, I really regret not explaining this to you earlier, but I like commenting on user talk pages because I felt it would be a place of reduced controversy, were I can give personal advice to people without being called for distracting the discussion. Logically that should be the place... That's just my personal wager.

Wait, actually I forgot to address a few more points. I think whether or not my opinion was requested, and whether I'm involved, is not the key issue. I think you discussed before how uninvolved input is fine. And I believe few opinions are ever requested... Thank you for having the patience here, I know you don't like being here but you're someone who respect the responsibility to respond to me. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 04:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

interesting, thanks for that Sergecross73. I think I'll offer to help out there too. I'd like to give input etc. (thanks again, genuinely helpful! And yes, I'm sure you are aware when you see one of my accounts etc, but I get the feelings you just let me be. But thats it now, I'm going to leave you alone. Have a nice life!

Yes, leave him alone, don't let things go ugly or do anything hurtful, Wikipedia is just some random website wherein people talk like it's a big deal. I don't know what they did to you (given what I've seen, including an alleged case of someone committing suicide for being banned/baited on a similar website). It's possible they did something worse to you, and you're understandable... But the thing is you're making only other people think badly about you. If you actually win in this, you'll drive people to tears. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 06:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

People do seem to take this a lot more seriously than is warranted. I mean, its not like people use this for serious study or anything. I mean it can be good for finding links to original articles, maybe, but then it can be upsetting too. I dunno where I stand, but I certainly don't like the idea of external website 'bating, thats just mean. And is anything really worth that - I mean being hurtful, or indeed suicide - let alone crying. I'm still not sure where I stand on it, but I think I agree with all of you. For various different reasons, as you each have you pros, and subsequent cons. Although thats an infinite problem of man, or invite problems only which only have quintessential, finite solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.28 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's nothing so serious. I blocked that person for a few days due to personal attacks and edit warring, and ever since, he's been throwing a tantrum, following me around, and making silly comments. That's all. It happens. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

He'll get board of that soon enough I guess! Unless... You're not encouraging that from him? Which I doubt very much as you actually appear to be a reasonable person. The should make you a wiki-administrator or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.28 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see that policy too. Care to show me that too please? Seems like many of the Wiki policies are exceptionally subjective. Have to wonder why many people prefer to edit behind an IP rather than sign up for an account. 87.114.181.58 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, sorry for being too sarcastic when I said "I wouldn't mind you showing it here." I shouldn't say that in the future.Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 00:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That part wasn't that bad, people say that sort of thing a lot. I do hope you take my advice seriously though, and start discussing things at the appropriate venues. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's nice of you. But if you do feel I shouldn't have said that, I should be welcome to hear you express something. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 04:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Images needing articles

I notice you haven't yet edited in the mainspaceyet. I thought you might be interested in starting one of these articles:

• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images

Please let me know if you need any help. Anna F remote (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! But sorry it turns out I'm not the person who prefers working this way. Ty for offering help. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What she offers you is actually the opposite - the image is already supplied, but there is no article yet. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry ppl, I changed that. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about your motives.Are you here to improve Wikipedia or complain about it's editors? Because recently I've seen you taking part in discussions,expressing your opinions about other users.And all I can see on your contributions page is talk page edits.--Chamith (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I only have contributions in talk pages (and a few other pages). Everything you say here is well observed.

It's very natural to be curious about the motives of someone newly involved in things. You're not the only one wondering about me. But I wouldn't say there's dichotomy... after all, if editing others' talk pages doesn't improve Wikipedia, then why do we have them at all? Why not private messages? Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 17:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I send you a friend request on this thing? 147.143.95.28 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also hope the Admins take my comment in jest, after all, where would we be if Wikipedia disallowed humour amongst its editors. Britannica, that's where we'd be, Britannica. 147.143.95.28 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nerdy Community Dude: Talk pages are used to improve Wikipedia pages, sometimes to point out mistakes made by other editors. It's not a forum where you can judge other users. I think you should really read WP:TP and WP:TPG. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course. You're very right. Judging other users on user talk pages just for the heck of it, would be very rude and deteriorate civility. I see where you're coming from.

This is why I try my best to give my third (or fourth, etc) opinion on the situation rather than the people, and avoid implicating any users for anything. Even then however, I could be misunderstood. But if you want to help me improve, point out specifically where I was judgmental. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:MirrorFreak. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure

@Lukejordan02:, I'm very very sorry about bothering you again, but remember you deleted the off topic section on your talk page? The first few comments in that deleted section looked like spam, so you probably didn't want to read the rest of it.

But I did say something I thought will help you argue about your frustrations from the ban: here I talked about how reasonable people would say "oh dear, we're terribly sorry, this has been a mistake, this time we didn't go through proper processes and turned out to be wrong." And how instead the message was "humph. Looks like you win and we lost. Well, let us remind you that we don't consider you an angel. Anyways, be good, Lukejordan02, be good."

I find it strange Anna et al. would call you a net negative on Wikipedia and talk so harshly to you. Why didn't they say that to me?

I find it awful to falsely accuse someone of something, not ever apologize, and talk so condescendingly. It's like I play golf and break your window, but instead of apologizing, me and my golf buddies say "hey, there's a golf course here, and you knew that when you bought your house, so stop complaining, it's wasting our time." Worse yet is how they threaten you with another ban for meatpuppetry. Even they really have an issue with that, they shouldn't bring it up in your complaint because it's off topic. And I feel they wouldn't mention it if you didn't complain to Sergecross, so it's like they're retaliating against your concerns. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 00:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but notice you've completely ignored my final warning about the correct avenues for discussion, and not creating discussions are entirely your personal musings and unsolicited advice. It looks like you're just digging up discussions that were dead. (Lune already deleted that message from his talk page.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it does look like it even to me. I say this just in case he didn't read it (I explained above).

Anyways, here I'm not getting in the way of any discussion, and the only person I might annoy is Lukejordan02. If you really think about, all those valid points that it's questionable to post in other people's discussions, all those valid points, do not appear to be transferable to here. Lukejordan02 can freely tell me he saw me and doesn't need to read my explanation again, and I swear I will leave him alone for life. Sorry Luke Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your future at Wikipedia

I am starting to think that WP:NOTHERE applies to you. So far, you seem to be here only to discuss the conduct of the editors. You are drawing lots of eyes, keystrokes, and time away from building the encyclopedia. So, I must ask: Are you here to build the encyclopedia? Do you intend on actually editing the mainspace? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already given him a final warning...and honestly the only thing keeping me from blocking him is the technicality that I probably warned him not to do this in other people's talk pages, and this time he used his own talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, I didn't word it that way. And mt warning certainly wasn't suggesting that sort of message above is what he should be doing here on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, Nerdy Community Dude, come on, really, what do you say? Why not help build the encyclopedia? It's fun. If you are nerdy, enjoy being part of a community, and are a dude, well, that is pretty much everybody around here. You'll fit right in. :) So, what do you say? Mainspace? Edit? Build? Try it. Just get your feet wet by adding a fact to an article. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such encouragement. I'm sure if you encourage Luke he'll agree and work on what you suggest and busy up.

However, you all know me. I'm here to make Wikipedia better (that really is my motivation), just as everyone who edit articles (except maybe some covert paid editors) are here to do.

To help you all with knowing my position and arguing/discussing with my main ideas, here's how I view myself: I give my third opinion input (to people in their talk pages) and hope it'll lead to a consensus, or de-escalate the disagreement.

We don't all agree with how one another is trying to make Wikipedia better. But there are no hard and fast rules about "edit enough articles, and then work on giving third opinions.

Again, thank you for your encouragement Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really had the urge to jump into the crowd and follow what you say... it felt like a revelation "oh, hang on a second, I should go for that." You explained your suggestion so well, but I thought, ah that just isn't me. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I must say that, so far, I do not see your efforts as worthwhile. You seem like a nice person, though. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Many people will disagree. Even if I edited articles, depending on what subject I pick, a huge proportion of people will feel I made a serious mistake choosing my subject.

Thank you that's awesome to hear Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The community should decide

This is a new one for me. Directly above, you declare that you are an editor who basically says that he does not intend on editing the mainspace, but instead will engage with others and be a net positive.

I cannot act unilaterally on this one. The community must decide.

Community: Is it alright for Nerdy Community Dude to be part of this community without editing the mainspace? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say...

I used to imagine Wikipedia to be a place where everyone can come and just whatevar, you know, as long as they don't break the rules or disrupt the processes.

I never thought so many people would find me some how, clicking that little _talk button on my signature and discuss my habits. I never knew people at Wikipedia would measure how much of each job a user does, and decide if that's the right way to play at Wikipedia.

I'm here to try improving Wikipedia with my input. This is my position and I'll stand by it until they make a clear rule that I cannot do this. If that happens I may change my approach, or try my luck contributing to a site elsewhere, outside of Wikipedia List of Internet encyclopedias. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 02:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now it appears I have been blocked. My experience here in general has been positive and I do not regret coming. I will be creating accounts in other online encyclopedias (though I many abandon them and come back if unblocked.) Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 06:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing. In your time here, all you have done is [follow the blocklog and make unconstructive comments on the talk pages of people who had been recently blocked. Your comments have not ever aided discussion, and quite the opposite, oftentimes got in the way of discussion. You recommend people leave the project. Complain about Admin. I don't see how you can see this as constructive and literally all you've done is make comments like this, or try to defend them, the entire time. It's all been unsolicited advice, much of it, not constructive. You've been offered to contribute to discussions at other venues, and you have declined. You've been asked to work on actually building an encyclopedia, and editing articles, and you have declined. It seems like you more or less want to complain about Wikipedia, or "right great wrongs" about how things are run here, but you refuse to at in a constructive manner about it. So you are now blocked from editing.

I will unblock you if you commit to discussion at the recommended venues. (WP:RFC, WP:VILLAGEPUMP, etc) or if you decide you want to actually write in articles. But you'll be blocked again if you return merely following the block log and complaining about the website. When that's all you do, it's disruptive and it shows that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Sergecross, I always understood you thought my comments were unconstructive. You told me so very clearly, I asked why, and you gave your good reasons (even though we disagreed).

I always known there was conflict between us, and I wish there hadn't been, but I thought you would bring it up at some forum rather than directly ban me, as we are both involved in the many discussions where you judge my comments to be unconstructive. Of course, it would be infeasible to raise every editor to a conflict resolution forum before banning, but I think my case is especial. I certainly don't fault you for thinking otherwise that my case doesn't warrant those steps, and I'd likely make the same decision if I were you. Still I disagree.

You mentioned my unconstructive editing and I will defend them here:

• those were just some of my comments you thought was unconstructive. I think they were constructive, but even if you're right, and they didn't in fact help with anything, it would not be grounds for a ban, but maybe a mediation. Why I think this, is that of course I could find enough edits from anyone's contributions and argue they're unconstructive. So in addition to arguing those edits are pointless, you should argue most of my edits are.
• I recommend people to leave the project. I understand where you're comming from here. That sounds bad and any reasonable person would find a problem with it. Certainly, in many cases this could lead to a simple ban. If someone were to wander around annoyingly recommending other leave, it wouldn't be long before a ban. But I would only recommend leaving to people who are entangled in such conflicts, where I personally may leave the project if I were them. It turns out the conflict one person was involved in was resolved (in a way), and I was baffled. I was wrong. Of course you might think my judgement was completely ungrounded, but this is a personal disagreement. We were both involved in the discussions.

There are many users who tell others they're a "net negative" to the project, which basically advises the same thing, except for a more hostile reason (whereas my reason for recommendation is "it's not worth it to go through this conflict just for Wikipedia" theirs is "fact is, we're better off without you, too bad").

• I complained about admins in general. First off, I think people should be allowed to complain as much as they want, but I know everyone disagrees with me here, so I'll explain why I still don't think you should ban me. I only mentioned it once while arguing to someone, that they shouldn't plead too much with the admins. I rarely actually make complaints about Wikipedia admins in general, usually my complaints would be about how civilly people talked about someone. (I'm not saying a bit of incivility is against the rules, but mentioning it and saying it was inappropriate is constructive commenting). Or I complain about the statistical likelihood of being banned to people, explaining why their ban should not be taken as too big a deal. But that said, this complaint was especially harsh. I didn't imply any particular admin as my subject.
• On your third example. Here is where I have hopes you may actually agree with me. This is a blocked person's talk page, so no one is likely to read except that person. I'm not harming or getting in the way of anyone, or in anyway getting in the way of this online encyclopedia: even if everyone posted opinions like that on such talk pages, things on Wikipedia will run as smoothly and articles will be as good to read. I'm not wasting anyone's time but mine, as no one replied. Why did I say it? Well, this person unfortunately been kicked out of Wikipedia by someone for a good time. I'm just advising him to be nice in whatever other community s/he may join later, and not feel discouraged by being banned here. You may disagree with the claims I made there, but they are opinions, and you could reply. I hope for this one issue you don't disagree.

I know this is a lengthy unblock request, but I wanted to argue about those edits specifically, as this notice is the first time we specifically brought up some of my edits, and the first time you explained that you see that it's wrong to recommend someone to leave and that the third edit we mentioned was disruptive. Of course you don't have to explain these to me before banning, and it's normal enough to make new arguments in your ban explanation. I'm just explaining it's why I have to argue so much in my request.

You may choose what you want, I won't take this too seriously as my time contributing to Wikipedia has been some whimsy in the first place. So don't worry too much about the decision.

If you choose to leave it as this, goodbye, and sorry for your time. I know people here can be kind and happy without me. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 04:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

ah, sorry, I can't resist, but another argument:

• I'm not here to right how things are run here. That's a very subjectively matter and different websites explore different styles. I'm sometimes try to forceless ask, maybe if people discussing here could be more civil towards a user. That, being kinder is better, is not changing how Wikipedia is run, and is not disagreeing with any style here. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 04:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Another two:

• No one asked for any friendly advice from me. But in places like this there is going to be a lot of advice from people back and forth, and not necessary much asking for advice, because people rarely do that unless in much trouble. Many people jump in and give advice, and this is a good environment to have. I know it's not when the advice is distracts the conversation, but if that's the problem we should discuss that. And I have. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 05:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• And I do read the blocklogs to find somewhere for my third opinion. But it's not the only place I go! Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 05:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear you're so eager to unblock me if I go into editing instead. You still have patience, which is kind of notable. But I have to decline, and say "no thank you." I'm sorry for that, but please reconsider. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Although you have produced a very long argument, it does not contain a sensible reason to unblock. You have made no constructive edits to the encyclopedia, and have expressed the determination not to do so. Your edits to other editors' talk pages are not constructive. I concur with the other admins posting on this page; in my view you are not here to help build the encyclopedia. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Personally, I will not unblock you.

I suspect you are a sock. Also, I am looking at the length of that unblock request and your posts, and the fact that you do not intend on editing the mainspace.

I think you see Wikipedia as your social plaything, and nothing more.

You fit WP:NOTHERE perfectly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a "sock." Wikipedia:Clean start says I can create a new account as long as I haven't been banned before, and my previous account is not currently under scrutiny. I'd have suspected too.

I explained why my request is so long, but yeah maybe it's too long to even start reading and thus ever seeing that explanation of mine.

I tried to talk about how I think I'm contributing. But you nevertheless think I see Wikipedia as "[my] social plaything." You don't have to say that... you can opt out of unblocking however you like. In fact you can say "I agree with Sergecross. You fit WP:NOTHERE perfectly." and have no need to explain, as he has a justification. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 05:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. You've conceded no interest in editing articles or changing your ways, and your unblock request has been denied. NOTHERE has been cited or alluded to by at least 4-5 people now. There is nothing left to discuss now. Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)