User talk:Erik the Red 2/Archive

Original research

Hi, your recent claim that Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in order to officially seize it for Israel violate WP:NOR. Please read the policy carefully and hopefully it will help you make great edits in the future. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Iraq War, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- VegitaU 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to J. R. R. Tolkien. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Deor (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Morse code has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks Astral (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin?

Hi, I notice you speak a high level of Latin. Anyway, I working on an article about the Pont Notre-Dame in Paris. There is an inscription from Sannazaro under one of the bridges arches which reads: Jucundus geminos posuit tibi, Sequana, pontes Hune tu jure potes dicere pontificem See here and here for the original source.

Do you think you might be able to do a translation of it, as I can't figure it myself. Thanks much! 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for your translation. I've pretty much used it word for word in the article. It certainly makes sense in the context of the subject and I think it adds to the overall positive effect of the article. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Erik. Can I suggest you consider withdrawing your current RfA. There is, I'm afraid, almost no chance that it will pass at this time. You don't have enough edits for the community to have confidence in your experience with policy, you haven't properly formatted the RfA or answered the questions, your edit summary usage is very low, etc. Your willingness to offer your services as an administrator is greatly appreciated, but it would be prudent to get some more experience under your belt and then try for an editor review or get admin coaching first. Best, Gwernol

I closed your RfA as un-successful at this time. Please take the comments made above and on your RfA and improve upon them. Best of luck, and if you have any questions feel free to let me know. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

{{helpme}} So when I logged in, I forgot to check the remember me button. When I quit out of Safari, some vandal with the same IP address got himself blocked. Now, though I am logged into my account, I cannot edit any pages except for my user and talk pages. I have tried clearing my browser's catch, but that didn't work. I also tried using my account on Opera, Firefox, and IE for Mac, bu the same error occurred. Are there any other things I can try? Thanks, Erik

Your account is currently going under a autoblock, which means that the whole ip is blocked from editing, even if you are logged in. To unblock, add {{unblock-auto|ip address|autoblock message|blocking admin}} to your talk page, while substituting your ip address, why you want to be unblocked, and who blocked your ip. Then an admin will check up on your request a short while later. ~ LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Erik the Red 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

69.243.146.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

I did not vandalize any article in any way, and I don't want to be held guilty for the actions of someone who shares my IP. That's one of the reasons why I created an account in the first place!

• Blocking administrator: Krimpet (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Decline per discussion below — Daniel Case (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look odd that someone with your IP address would, out of the blue, make this edit to your userpage and that you would, after not editing for eight hours, revert it one minute later. How did that happen? Have you been logging out and vandalizing your own userpage? .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 05:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell would I vandalize my own user page? I'm not schizophrenic or with a split personality, and not an emo! Come on!

As a suggestion, perhaps the account was compromised - but this is only a suggestion. I'm not saying this is the case, but it is a possibility. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being victimized for the coincidental vandalism of a random user who happens to share my IP! All of the evidence given against me is completely fantastical! I refuse to be censored! {{helpme}} See above-lift the block!

helpme is not for requesting unblocks, see above for why your request has been denied.--Werdan7^{T @} 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Erik the Red 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

69.243.146.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

I did not vandalize any article in any way, and I don't want to be held guilty for the actions of someone who shares my IP. That's one of the reasons why I created an account in the first place!

• Blocking administrator: Krimpet (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(2ec) You're not being censored, just blocked. You know, it really does seem that you knew that someone was editing your userpage from your IP address. I don't know if you pressed Save page or not, but the fact that you were able to revert it within a minute after not editing for more than eight hours suggests that, at least on that day, you either vandalized your page while logged out or that you where present and aware when someone else did. Which is it? .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As per above unblock request - I would like to ask that if this user is indeed blocked directly, and not autoblocked, as the decline reason suggests, why do I see this user's block log as empty? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A good point. You know, this is really quite outrageous. I suggest strongly that Wikipedia change its slogan to "Wikipedia-the constricted encyclopedia that anyone with good luck and without the suspicion of admins can edit". That seems rather fitting, given the present situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs)

The user is blocked because the IP is hard-blocked. .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 23:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the user is blocked because the IP is blocked , but then why does the decline reason on the second unblock message state that the user is directly blocked? This is beginning to make less and less sense to me. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Erik added that himself here. .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Stwalkerster makes increasingly good points. Is there some kind of like, conspiracy that involves accusing people of vandalizing their own user pages for no purpose going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs)

Erik, I would suggest you take a moment to calm down. Throwing around accusations of conspiracy and attacking the project does nothing to bolster your claims of innocence in this matter. You will do yourself a great favor if you can act calmly during this time and wait for further review. I will take a look into this. Gwernol 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs)

The second unblock notice is there because you (Erik) placed it there in this edit. I'm not sure why you placed a reviewed autoblock request on your own talk page, but to do that, then continue to act as if Krimpet had done that is puzzling. Could you explain why you did that? I'd like to hear your explanation before I dive further into this matter. Thanks, Gwernol 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry-that's not what I meant to do at all. I tried to copy something that had written that was overridden because someone else was editing, but I guess I failed. I didn't realize I was acting like Krimpet had done it. Sorry Krimpet, if you're reading. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Further review from Gwernol

Erik, I've looked into this some more. The fact that you logged in to revert the IP vandalism just a minute after it occurred is suspicious.

The IP resolves to Comcast in the Chicago region, and is "directly allocated" which usually (though not always) indicates that it is static, or on a long cycle time. In other words, this probably isn't a shared IP address. Its probably only used by one cable/DSL modem.

I also notice that before the IP went on its vandalism spree, it made these constructive edits to Antigone (Sophocles), an article which you have also been contributing to as Erik the Red 2. Again this shared interest in an article lends suspicion that you and the IP are the same editor.

Unfortunately all this evidence does point to the IP being you logged out of your account. You ask why you would vandalize your own user page - we've had examples before of editors logging out, vandalizing, then reverting the vandalism under their main account to make it look like they were doing good vandal fighting work. I'm not saying that is necessarily what happened in this case, but it is one reason why people might not be surprised.

At this time, the weight of evidence seems to me to fall quite strongly with the conclusion that you are the IP, and I'm not willing to lift the block on the IP or on this account. Sorry, Gwernol 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on

I am sorry for two things. One, that it can be found out just by editing Wikipedia where exactly I live, what kind of Internet I have, how many people it goes to, and that this information can be given freely. This is an invasion of my privacy. A step further, and I would consider it illegal. Two, that somebody who is making constructive edits this way and that is accused of concurrently ripping up the project they are working on building up. If this is the best Wikipedia can do, than I will be forced to leave. There are plenty of other sites out there with perfectly good, and generally less biased and more accurate information, out there on the Internet, that doesn't provide false accusations and privacy invasions. I hope that you all decide to change, or else it's goodbye. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I't know where you live, all I know is that your IP is registered in the Chicago region. The information about your IP is not supplied by Wikipedia but is public information supplied by Comcast. Every time you send an email or access a website your IP is attached and the ISP information can be retrieved via whois services. This is the reality of using the Internet, its not Wikipedia-specific. If you don't like your ISP revealing this information about you, find a different ISP, but don't shoot the messenger.

I'm sorry you feel like leaving, but I'm afraid there is significant evidence that suggests you have edited from that IP in the past and that it likely isn't being shared with anyone else. What do you expect us to do in this situation? Gwernol 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, where I live is completely unknown, but my internet is in Chicago. Maybe I live in Kansas. I do live in Chicago, and my neighbor, who uses Comcast, is a professor of classics at U of C, and has a teenage son. A pretty likely candidate for making constructive edits to an article about a Greek play and than profanely vandalizing. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this clear: I am not lobbying for the block on the IP lifted, just for the block on my account. If you lift the block on my account alone, the IP will not suddenly vandalize again; it would still be under block. I wouldn't start vandalizing, because I know what a block is like now. Not being able to edit for the crimes of another gets pretty annoying after two days. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (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).

Erik the Red 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

per reasons above

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. The block log is empty. — Sandstein (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Erik the Red 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

69.243.146.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

This is getting very ridiculous.

• Blocking administrator: Krimpet (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have not been autoblocked, but your IP address has been directly blocked due to disruption. I am declining this request for the present, without prejudice to a further action by Krimpet, the blocking administrator. AGK § 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note for the blocking admin. Please be patient. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic

Has anybody read anything that I have written?! This is seriously pathetic. I am innocent of any vandalism! Keep the block on the IP for all I care, just lift the one on me! Erik the Red 2 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What do I put to get the hard block on the IP lifted?

It's not an autoblock, and not a direct block, so what is it? Erik the Red 2 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, you need to give an acceptable explanation for how you knew to revert vandalism to your userpage one minute after it occurred after not editing for more than eight hours. It seems that you either vandalized your page while logged out or that you where present and aware when someone else did, and until there's an explanation, I don't see the block being lifted. WODUP 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The block is lifted

At last, the block has expired. No hard feelings w/ anyone. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

Don't thank me, tightass. Talk pages have nothing to do with construction. No one ever told me they did and from all around what I've been seeing, they've never been about construction.

What good is it to name a page "Talk" if you're always trying to SHUSH people? That "mighty" prick has any insult to him coming anyhow, just read the myths, kid...

Thanks! ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

1. I think you need to check out WP:AGF and WP:Talk pages.

2. I am not a "kid".

Please, Wikipedia is not meant for personal attacks. I mean no offense to you.

Erik the Red 2 (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Screw the WP:AGF/WP:Talk pages. They have yet to save either of our lifes.

Don't assume you know more about something than someone else. As it just so happens this time around, you don't.

So back off and go about your own path to save us both the writers cramp. I don't feel like getting into another one of these "no one wins" squabbles.ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

policy

It doesn't matter whether or not you like the AGF/Talk page policy articles, because they're just that: policy. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, than you should stop editing. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether, it doesn't matter whether I like it or not.

I'll state the obvious right now: I don't like toiling pointlessly with other users. Paticularly the ones who take days to resopnd. Could you please get your disagreeable butt off my talk page? That would be good. There was no problem until you tried starting stuff and I most appreciate it if we could go about our seperate ways and stop this bickering. If you really want to help me, show me how to post images...ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)