User talk:Dozzzzzzzzzing off

1164:, after a minimum of six months with no editing (or socking, trolling, or any of that other nonsense). Some administrators probably don't think I should ever be allowed back into the community, and I respect their opinion. I am aware that it will take a good deal of time and effort to regain the community's trust. As a show of good faith, I am willing to, upon request, reveal my real name and physical address to members of the Wikimedia Foundation or Arbitration Committee as a condition of my unblock (if and when that occurs). I would like to apologize for my past actions, and especially to anyone whom I may have personally hurt or offended. I care about this project and want to eventually make significant contributions to it, but I understand that I need to spend some time away and (when the time comes) provide a good reason to be unblocked. In the meantime, I will familiarize myself with site policies. 1073: 1021: 967: 423: 89: 1131: 1525: 51: 26: 57: 1418:. We're a new student organization I'm starting up to bring students interested in Knowledge (XXG) together, regardless of experience. If you're still attending Ohio State and are interested, do feel free to join and sign up for our mailing list! I'll be happy to provide more details if you'd like. Thanks, and go Bucks. 341:

That solution is better Knowledge (XXG) writing. Expressing something as a specific individual's opinion rather than a fact doubted by some ill-defined individual or individuals is better writing in terms of . It is subtle, but with a little practice it becomes second nature. Thanks for sticking with

171:

Hello D. I am sorry that you had to put up with this BS. You are certainly free to remove this message under the guidelines for talk pages. We carry an extensive line of Troll-be-Gone products which are perfect for this situation. Again IMO you should just remove this nonsense. Cheers and have a good

131:

You're right in that a dictionary (or further Knowledge (XXG) reading) can help clear up some of those big words. However, I'd still feel better with a diagram that at the very least shows the arteries which converge to form the plexus, because I don't think the article as it stands now explains the

1448:

Dude, that sounds awesome, and I hope it results in a lot of constructive work from OSU students! I obtained a graduate degree in May of 2013 and have not attended OSU since; I'm actually going back to school soon, but it'll be elsewhere. However, I wish you the best of luck, and I would totally be

155:

It's hilariously ironic seeing a manchild with nothing constructive to give to society, a perma 15-year-old who's fucked with Knowledge (XXG) with laserlike asspie focus for almost a whole decade, crusading for the Job Creators of the Republican party. Even those right wing talking heads you have a

1167:

Please block my underlying IP for at least six months. There are no other accounts associated with it and I don't want to have the opportunity to create any more. I don't know which account I should request unblock from when that time comes (MCM0313 was actually the first I created). I do have one

288:

Something like "what he considers" for alleged, or "has written an opinion that..." and move the term "academic imperialism" past the definition. The goal is to write a flowing text that expresses the facts. If there were an immediately obvious best way, I would have made the change myself. In the

116:

I am sorry, but I do not see your problem. While certainly there are some words in the article not in everyday usage, there are not many and a dictionary should elucidate the meanings where necessary. The diagram shows the nasal septum, and the text says precisely where Kiesselbach's plexus, or

1152:

I've made some strides as an editor, and I eventually want to do a lot to help the encyclopedia. But I've been thinking about this a lot, and I can't build a reputation based on lies or omissions. I want no skeletons in my closet, so I've decided to come clean: I am the individual behind the

682:

I see on your user page that you are seeking adoption. I hesitate to offer right now, as I shall be off-wiki for about ten weeks over winter. But I am happy to give any advice that you may need up to the end of November, and would be happy to adopt you, if it were to be still appropriate, in

537:

No offence taken. The edit total includes admin actions, currently standing at something over 26,000. Other edits are something over 18,000. You could argue as to the exact definition of "edits"; I choose to take it as including both categories. I am somewhat encouraged by your interest.

132:

location well enough to clarify it to someone who is not a medical professional. Bear in mind, too, that a parent of mine is a medical professional and I do possess a basic level of medical and anatomical knowledge; I just don't find this article to be terribly clearly-written.

631:

Sure, but we all have watchers. As I say, I have 228 last time I looked. To see the figure click the link "view history" at the top of the page, and then click on "number of watchers". You use the term "stalkers", but nearly all watchers are in fact benign and even protective.

254:

was inappropriate. Any change to content, even a synonym which might carry a different nuance, exceeds the scope of the minor tag. I can see what you are trying to do, and I agree with the sentiment behind it. Please, do not let this be a discouragement from trying

1614:

Many moons ago you asserted she was Jewish and edited as such. No reference was cited. I've removed the categories you added. If you can verify, please do. The first two pages of a google search listed nothing that looked like a reliable source. Regards

594:

Incidentally, and purely for fullness of information, I see that there are at present 3 editors who watch your page; also as of now 228 are watching mine. And this is average for an admin; any transgression is jumped on from a great height!

580:

I try only to block when no other course is correct; I think most of us do. Anyone can make a mistake, but hopefully I make fairly few. And, of course, on Knowledge (XXG) every action is reversible, at least by someone with the correct

565:

Thank you. I've done a fair bit of observing on Knowledge (XXG), and I've noticed that some admins seem to be rather block-happy. Figured, not knowing whether you were one of these, that the best route to take was to tread lightly.

1153:"Yummyanaljuices" sock farm. Legitimate editing has greatly decreased my desire to sock and reduced the frequency of my socking, but I cannot allow myself to continue editing without having been forthright with the community. 646:

It just says "under 30"---perhaps the specific number is privy exclusively to admins, though I can't see why that would be the case. Anyway, I thought a lot of editors called them "stalkers" in a half-joking way.

1485:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 64:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

1041:

I've added some suggestions, ideas for queries to get sources and two tools to format the citations. Please feel free to post questions or comments there or on my talk page. I'll be watching both pages.

1191:

Well, thanks, but frankly, if you've confessed to it and promise not to carry on then I don't care enough to block you. Why don't you just get back to editing constructively and see what happens? --

1137: 1564:

for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

381: 377: 1239:

are both socks that I created way back in 2012 that were never blocked. Would you mind taking care of them? If you need proof, I can sign in and put something on their talk pages.

836: 832: 661:

I didn't discover this link until after I was an admin, so sorry about that. A lot of people do actually see the term stalker as being at least minimally pejorative. --

1415: 783: 1086: 1034: 984: 779: 440: 102: 1266:

I'm certain they'd both come up as stale if a CU looked into them. I can log in if that won't get me accused of more rule-breaking than I'm already guilty of.

1602: 1354: 887: 846: 793: 740: 507: 391: 927: 923: 1561: 1533: 903: 730: 497: 1079: 1072: 899: 1350: 1236: 883: 842: 789: 736: 503: 387: 726: 493: 1510: 250:. There are better ways of showing how a named individual's opinion is an opinion. Mostly, I'm dropping this message because the use of a 243: 1414:

Hi there. I noticed from your userpage that you may be attending Ohio State. If you're still attending, I invite you to take a look at

1343:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

876:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

56: 50: 1591: 1438: 1232: 369: 157: 1203:

It would also appear that a clean start is an option. To me it seems you're looking for a punitive block which I do not think should

1601:(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from 203:

so I think you will like the quotes at this article - especially number five that has part of your username in it! Cheers again.

1506: 839:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 786:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 733:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 500:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 384:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1347:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 880:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 824: 185:

Thank you, although I'll leave this on my talk page anyway---no need to surgically remove little scars; they show character.

293:

term. Given that this article is mostly an reflection of the one person's opinions, it is intrinsically problematic article.

1595: 1549:! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at 1328:

If you are nice to us, we will be nice to you. That's far better than blocking you and having you go back to socking.

1497:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1502: 465: 1344: 877: 1097:, but it seems like this is the key issue for your question. Please feel free to clarify if I've missed something. 823:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

770:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

717:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

689: 667: 638: 601: 587: 558: 544: 484:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

368:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

123: 1161: 1280:

Then leave it. I don't really care about those accounts enough to block them, frankly. Just don't use them. --

1253:

A CU will need to look into that to verify that connection or you will need to login and link those accounts.

1173: 1550: 1450: 1267: 1240: 1177: 771: 698: 648: 609: 567: 469: 316: 271: 217: 186: 133: 1231:

Wow, really? Okey-dokey, then. I shall strenuously avoid any further disruptive behavior. Thank you. Also,

34: 1588: 1568: 1435: 1305: 1110: 1055: 1003: 973: 966: 161: 1498: 30: 1554: 684: 662: 633: 596: 582: 553: 539: 118: 110: 347: 298: 260: 1474: 1465: 290: 247: 934: 208: 177: 95: 88: 1616: 1494: 1478: 919: 722: 1157: 1620: 1581: 1575: 1428: 1422: 1400: 1293: 1281: 1192: 1098: 1094: 1043: 1027: 1020: 991: 951: 862: 809: 756: 523: 407: 73: 1490: 1482: 1156:

Obviously I'm going to be blocked, and rightfully so; my goal is to eventually come back via

697:

Should I still be an orphan, as it were, I shall take you up on that offer in mid-February.

125: 1493:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1486: 1140:

has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the

461: 429: 422: 343: 294: 256: 251: 1368: 1329: 1259: 1223: 1213: 895: 204: 173: 48:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

1391: