793:
good faith etc. regarding my contributions was the only defense I had against an onslaught, but that's beside the point. (please review the article 'Norwalk, Connecticut's' editing history). I wish to also emphasize I am in no way blaming anyone for any wrongdoing. I am merely explaining what happened. I remain unaware of any limit to the amount of warnings that can be placed, read or not, on another editor's talk page. How would I have known whether my message was getting through? That especially when the warnings were being removed so rapidly. As I wrote above, I speculated the reason for deletion(s) including the possibility of being baited. Speculations can be dangerous but they are not written in stone and certainly not grounds for the punitive action taken against me. Had I been aware of any restriction to the number of warnings one editor can place in another's talk page I would not have done so. For that I plead ignorance to such a regulation with lesson learned. If there is no such regulation regarding the number of warnings one editor can give another then I plead innocent of wrongdoing in the absence of such regulation and request this block to be lifted. Thank you for reading this!——→
1517:
good faith and do nothing while the complainant ran roughshod over my contributions to the article setting it back in time by months? When was any explaination, any discussion, made for the reversions? And would that not be a glaring demonstration of disregard in assuming good faith? Given the time between when I made those repeated warnings (my bad), which I now know is the wrong thing to do, and the initiation of the block... where was the standard protocol for blocking followed? By itself, my behavior placing several warnings ought to be a minor offense that should have been dealt with no more than a harsh scolding; not a two week block. So, the block was not punative? There is much more story to this story that can be seen from glancing at an article's history. My past behavior had nothing to do with my behavior at the time and if that is taken into consideration then it will be with a heavy prejudice. (Seems like there is a dog barking up the wrong tree) Meanwhile, I continue my plea of innocence and request this block be lifted. Thank you——→
409:
policies and regulations. I consider all criticisms of my work and have compromised in most cases to avoid arguments and editing wars. In light of the contributions I have already made I believe this block is not justified. This block appears to be biased as there is only one complainant involved. I respect now and will continue to show respect for the work of my fellow editors within
Knowledge, nevertheless I believe I should not have to tolerate the level of harrassment, vandalism and disrespect leveled at my work by doing nothing. If I make a mistake, and instead of having the wrong explained to me, I am threatened with being blocked or being told of some non-existent policy I failed to adhere to then I suggest the blocking policy itself stands in contrast to Knowledge's neutral point of view policy. I have tried to seek help down several dispute resolution avenues within Knowledge to no avail. I believe my contributions are valuable to Knowledge and would like to continue doing so. Thank you for reading this.——→
1427:
character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait." In simple terms it means anyones past behavior cannot be used to prove (or consider) guilt or innocence in a current situation. So, when you inclued comments about my behavior such as "snarky" with "condescension and sarcasm" it puts a brightly prejudicial light on and against my defense, on my request to be unblocked; all that especially coming from an administrator. You see, my comments in the past have nothing to do with the current charge against me. Therefore I believe it is within my rights to ask you to remove your comments above as well as your unblock review as they will influence the judgement of all or any future reviews. I don't deserve this heavy handed and highly punitive block and I continue to plead innocence of wrongdoing. I hope you did not find this comment 'pedantic' or 'rather condesending'. I have no qualm with you. I hope that will remain as such! ——→
1603:
whether the message was read or not. That was my mistake, my error in judgement in doing so. A minor disruption, but a disruption nonetheless, I agree. What I should have written is that
Knowledge blocks can and ought to be prevented, as in to be kept from happening, or preventable by discussion, explanations, reasoning or some kind of counteraction before they are put in place. Which brings me to my next point. I am a reasonable, reachable, teachable, dissuadable human being. I believe in the policy of assuming good faith. Yet none of these methods were attempted before the block was hastily placed on my account. Therefore in the absence of what should have been standard protocol for placing a block on my account, by skipping past any other counteraction, I stand my ground for claiming this block was punitive, an act of bad faith and unjust. I've been at this now for far longer than any time I would have spent on any article I have worked. I need to take a break, get something to eat and rest.
1493:
circumstantial evidence thing, a
Knowledge block is not decided purely on the current offence (real or alleged), but also on an editor's history - whether the current situation represents a repeated example of past behaviour, for example. As an aside, previous behaviour is actually used in courts of law when deciding on the penalty to impose, and though Knowledge blocks are preventative rather than punitive, the extent of a block and its likelihood of being lifted early is almost always swayed by previous behaviour. As for removing my comments and my unblock decline, I will not do so because I believe them to be fair and honest.
168:. The Knowledge article 'Norwalk, Connecticut' is not 'official'. There is no rule, regulation, stipulation, consensus or tradition within Knowledge that any image used in Knowledge articles must be 'official' or otherwise. The image above the seal, Norwalk City Hall, as well as all other images in the article, are not 'official' yet you do not complain about them. If an image passes Knowledge muster it can be used whether you like it or not. I will not yield to any further bullying. I will not discuss this further in this talk page. Do the right thing.———→StephenTS42 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
2252:
File:Image_PlaceHolder.png, you can simply use image = Image_PlaceHolder.png. Captions should be specified with the caption parameter. Every infobox is different and the documentation for the infobox in question should be consulted for the proper parameters to match the image and caption. If
InfoboxImage is not yet fully implemented in the infobox you are using, the same alt=, upright=, title=, etc., parameters may be called using Extended image syntax, calling frameless, not thumb.
2094:
268:
1873:
31:
1778:
251:
924:
703:
501:
323:
181:
1662:
1516:
Good for you! I admire your steadfastness: it is your perogative! I too must also stand my ground. While I'm sure you meant to write that
Knowledge blocks are preventable, not preventative, I must ask how this block could have been prevented in light of the haste taken to apply it. Was I to assume
586:
Regarding 'spamming warnings': Every time I placed a warning in 'other editor's' talk page it was deleted without explanation. I had numerous reasons for placing those warnings, but not for spamming. As one warning was deleted I merely replaced it. I had speculated about the reason for the deletions,
159:
Sez you! No one is accusing you of anything. If anything, it appears a problem lies with your authority being challenged. Since you are not an administrator I suggest you seek the advice of one on this matter. What's best is to discuss editing suggestions or comments in the article's talk page; not
2051:
Stephen, you're on rather thin ice here, and you're certainly not doing yourself any favours in light of the current ANI thread regarding your conduct. It doesn't matter who started this, or who got "the last word", I suggest that you leave well enough alone for now. Edit something else for a while?
1492:
Ah, OK, I'm with you. When you asked me what it is called when someone's past behavior is brought up in order to judge their current character, I assumed you were implying that was what I was doing and you were challenging me on it - I'm happy to accept that was not your implication. Considering the
1386:
With all due respect: I did not ask for an explanation for how many times an admin can review an unblock request. I did not ask if, or imply, (that) you were judging my character. I asked a question though it remains unanswered. I don't think you were being evasive but will propose that jumping to
1426:
Thank you for well-wishing my future reviews with "good luck". I asked you if you knew what it is called when someone's past behavior is brought up in order to judge their current character. 'Circumstantial evidence' is what it's called and it means (in US law) "Evidence of a person’s character or
1247:
an admin, but as I have already reviewed one of your unblock requests relating to this block, I can not review any further ones. It would be unfair to you - you deserve fresh eyes. Also, I'm not trying to judge your character, only to review your behaviour - I don't care what your character is like
1239:
an 'admin'! Thank you for welcoming me to respond to anything anyone 'says' on this (my) talk page. Perhaps you did not notice or read beyond that first section, but my 'approach', as you put it, had already stopped and I have apologized for it. Now I apologize again for having had a 'tone' in my
792:
is understandable, but their removal does not indicate they were not read either. I had no reason to believe, or not believe, any of the warnings were read. Each of the warnings were unique in regards to what was wrongly done. Warnings to stop (other editor's) vandalism, disruptive editing, lack of
408:
I had made several attempts to be reasonable, to compromise, to act in good faith and assume the good faith of others. I believe this block was done hastily and did not follow the necessary protocol for blocking. This editor has worked dilligently to improve articles in
Knowledge by following its
2209:
Thank you for extending my TBAN and expanding it to all
Connecticut articles. As I recollect, the original TBAN was for 6 months which would have ended sometime in December and now that you have extended it for another 6 months wouldn't that add up to a one year ban ending sometime in June 2018?
1213:
You are welcome to respond to anything anyone says on this talk page right here any time you want. If you wish to continue discussions elsewhere, you will have to wait until either your block expires or is successfully appealed - and I do not know how long it will be before an admin reviews your
1602:
behavior in
Knowledge. It is reasonable to block an editor from behaving disruptively. But should the first recourse to disruptive behavior be to block rather than to reason? Placing warnings in another editor's talk page may very well be considered disruptive. However they are easy to delete
1823:
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like unblocking you or returning your talk page access would be the best course of action. You said all the right words, however the content of this very talk page shows a different picture, one of battleground attitude and refusal to get the clue. I think in this
608:
Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, and it's taken as an indication that they have read them - and your repeated re-addition constitutes harassment. Your suggestion that removing the warnings was baiting you is way off the mark, and you are not going to get yourself
2251:
See also: Knowledge:Image use policy § Displayed image size When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used. Infobox templates should implement the
InfoboxImage module to help with formatting of images so simply supplying the file name will work. For example, to use
2074:
I've been following this ever since it started and it's doing no-one good to point fingers and call out another editer which has been done throughout it all. I'm not saying anyone is wrong I'm just suggesting that we all take a breather, calm down, and discuss this peacefully.
2246:
Hi, the reason for altering your edits was that the page had been flagged as needing attention by being automatically entered in
Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. The text you quoted is for images that are not in infoboxes. The relevant section is:
1948:
In light of your insolence, I see no reason to grant you any favors. Regardless of those circumstances, warnings are never inappropriate, they are acts of courtesy incumbent upon all editors in Knowledge to issue other editors that cross the lines of respect.
623:
I just want to add that I've looked back on your recent interactions with others, and your approach seems somewhat confrontational and aggressive. You need to tone it down and assume good faith a bit more, or you could be receiving lengthier blocks.
160:
on this user page. No matter what you find to be acceptable you do not set policy for such within Knowledge. As a 'resident' I believe you should know this. Moreover, your 'argument' that the city seal for the article Norwalk, Connecticut
1180:
responding with condescension and sarcasm. And even on this very talk page, the first section above shows a perfectly civil approach being met with a snarky response. That approach has to stop, or the next block is likely to be indefinite.
2255:
I've changed the seal image as you wanted it but that means the page is now reentered in the Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images as you can see in the hidden categories section at the bottom of the page, thanks
1009:
With all due respect: If it is clear my 'behaviour' needs to significantly change please explain how, and by what means, it would not be the case, at the moment or otherwise. Thank you and have a nice day!
2035:
Do you not see the irony of posting "this edit war must stop!" while making an edit to revert someone furthering the edit war?! Remember, it takes at least two to edit war so you can easily stop the war too.
1597:
Thank you for that clarification. (It must be my American English to blame.) Of course blocking an editor is indeed a preventative act: it prevents disruptive behavior in Knowledge. In fact, it prevents
1405:
Sorry, but after that somewhat pedantic (and rather condescending) response, I really don't know what you are asking of me. So I'll not try any further - good luck with whoever reviews your requests.
283:
for persistent failure to assume good faith and spamming warnings on another editor's talkpage - previous warnings do not seem to have had any effect.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
868:
that the editor removing the warnings was baiting you was quite outrageous, and I'm still as stunned by it now as I was when I declined your previous unblock request.) I suggest you re-read that
2187:
pages relating to Connecticut, broadly construed, for a period of six months. If you have any further questions or clarifications, please let me know either here or on my talk page.
2315:
Thank you for pointing me out to the image use policy. I think I have solved the dilemma, but as usual I am open to suggestions, especially yours because yours were so well.→→
79:
Welcome back to Knowledge. Per your edit summary and my desire not to edit war, I'm responding here. ECode is a website that hosts city laws. Norwalk's is hosted there, as is
255:
1248:(and neither should anyone else at Knowledge), just your behaviour. And it is usual to consider an editor's recent behavioural history when reviewing blocks.
1066:
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.
849:
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.
659:
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.
465:
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.
1448:
I don't believe US law applies to this type of situation, even then, many former police records do apply in some way how long of a sentence can/will be. —
83:. The website is considered a reliable source as it is merely a host for official municipal ordinances. The ordinance on Norwalk's city seal is located
116:
talk-page; not on my user talk-page. Follow the rules! If you don't want an editing war, don't start one!——→StephenTS42 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
1705:
964:
743:
541:
363:
815:
We need to be convinced your behaviour will be significantly different if you are unblocked. At the moment, it's clear that would not be the case.
126:
When a user has a problem with another user, it's usually best to address it on the user's talk page, however either forum is perfectly acceptable.
1673:
1824:
situation deeds are way more indicatory than words. I recommend you to sit out your block. As usual, any admin should feel free to overturn me.
609:
unblocked until you understand what you were doing wrong and can convince a reviewing admin that such disruptive behaviour will not continue.
2337:
2126:
1051:
834:
644:
450:
292:
1152:, and while there is certainly discussion going on, I see big differences in the tones used by different editors. I see, for example,
1700:
959:
738:
536:
358:
1924:, I'm requesting that you don't edit my talk page expect for ANI/AN3 notices. This means no warnings, or inappropriate messages. —
677:
2.You put 6 warnings in a row on my talk page the first time, which is spam, and continued to re-add them, even when told to stop.
1531:
No, I did not mean to write that Knowledge blocks are preventable, not preventative, I meant what I wrote - they are intended to
1562:
I'm perfectly allowed to comment here, so stop. Also stop with this slang, it makes it look like you don't think this serious. —
2180:
1908:
66:
2144:
1786:
1240:
previous responses. What is it called when someone's past behavior is brought up in order to judge their current character?
1119:
1540:
1498:
1410:
1253:
1219:
1186:
891:
881:
629:
614:
2152:
2004:
1983:
1935:
1858:
1808:
1782:
1643:
1573:
1459:
1345:
1323:
1284:
1163:
1133:
1108:
1085:
690:
488:
240:
214:
2336:
By the way, and just let you know...the text you quoted about the use of thumbnail images in infoboxes can be found in
861:, which is one of Knowledge's core principles - and something you seem to be severely lacking in doing. (In fact, your
141:
99:
2122:
2069:
1032:
Explained sufficiently below. You've exhausted your appeals, talk page access revoked for the duration of your block.
288:
2341:
1880:
936:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
715:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
513:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
335:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
38:
229:
For the last time, please stop spamming warnings on my page, these actions will get you blocked if you continue. —
2156:
2101:
1972:
is wildly offensive, you would've been indef'd on the spot if I came back to find it. Hopefully, you regret it. —
1790:
1719:
1669:
1149:
978:
937:
757:
716:
555:
514:
377:
336:
275:
186:
2079:
1844:
1592:
1536:
1511:
1494:
1421:
1406:
1388:
1381:
1264:
1249:
1230:
1215:
1182:
931:
887:
877:
710:
625:
610:
508:
330:
872:
policy page (you have read it before haven't you?), and consider adjusting your unblock request to address
2118:
2114:
2110:
1097:
I think it's getting to the point that we need to revoke talk page access for the duration of the ban... —
284:
87:. The same seal is also used by the City of Norwalk's official Twitter account, if you want extra proof.
2363:
2349:
2320:
2299:
2285:
2261:
2215:
2026:
1958:
1889:
1611:
1522:
1481:
1432:
1396:
1370:
1204:
1015:
910:
798:
592:
414:
47:
17:
2345:
2316:
2281:
2211:
2022:
1954:
1679:
1627:
1607:
1557:
1518:
1477:
1443:
1428:
1392:
1366:
1307:
1270:
1200:
1177:
1011:
942:
906:
794:
721:
669:
588:
519:
410:
341:
436:
308:
113:
2148:
2076:
1199:
Thank you for your observation. Can you tell me when I will be allowed to defend what I wrote? ———→
192:
164:
be 'official, has no grounds. I would be more than happy to read your arguments to the contrary,
2229:
2192:
2164:
2057:
2183:
the ANI case regarding your recent conduct at the Westport page, and have extended your TBAN to
1762:
431:
You haven't addressed the block reason of spamming warnings to the other editor's talk page.
2359:
2331:
2310:
2295:
2275:
2257:
2132:
1999:
1978:
1930:
1853:
1829:
1803:
1696:
1638:
1568:
1454:
1340:
1318:
1279:
1158:
1128:
1103:
1080:
1060:
1037:
843:
685:
653:
483:
459:
298:
235:
209:
196:
137:
95:
2093:
820:
432:
267:
145:
103:
1391:
and can cloud the judgement process a skosh. Nonetheless, thank you for your answer. ——→
2367:
2353:
2324:
2303:
2289:
2265:
2233:
2219:
2196:
2168:
2082:
2061:
2045:
2041:
2030:
2006:
1985:
1962:
1937:
1863:
1833:
1813:
1766:
1648:
1615:
1578:
1544:
1526:
1502:
1485:
1464:
1436:
1414:
1400:
1374:
1350:
1328:
1289:
1257:
1223:
1208:
1190:
1138:
1113:
1090:
1041:
1019:
914:
895:
876:
unacceptable behaviour, because I really can't see an admin accepting it as it stands.
824:
802:
695:
633:
618:
596:
493:
440:
418:
311:
245:
219:
148:
106:
1777:
2225:
2204:
2188:
2160:
2053:
1843:
You might not want to constantly go to different sections of the site. That's called
869:
858:
474:
1758:
1273:
doesn't want to accept the fact that he was uncivil, at least from his comments. —
2016:
1994:
1973:
1943:
1925:
1888:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1848:
1825:
1798:
1633:
1563:
1471:
1449:
1360:
1335:
1313:
1274:
1153:
1123:
1098:
1075:
1033:
788:
Editors may be allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and that may be
680:
478:
230:
204:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1169:
180:
130:
88:
816:
2344:. Nonetheless, I respected and followed your advice anyway. Thanks again!——→
1334:
Can we also auto-decline the latest one, since it's basically a question... —
2037:
1745:
2121:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
287:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
1661:
587:
but it seems now as though it was a baiting strategy. Thank you again. ——→
2280:
Much thanks. I will work on a solution to that dilemma in my sandbox.——→
857:
How would you have known whether your message was getting through? You
1750:
was submitted on Apr 19, 2017 13:31:03. This review is now closed.
2224:
No, I reset the clock, so it's six months from today (22 Jan '18).
2129:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
295:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
2294:
Another editor has adjusted it, the images all look good, thanks
112:
Kindly place your editing suggestions or comments in the article
1118:
Also for administrators reviewing this unblock request, see the
1795:
I understand you're blocked, but stop moving my talk page edits
473:
After seeing this unblock request, I would recommended reading
84:
1867:
25:
258:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
80:
2092:
1660:
922:
905:
One unblock request withdrawn for the sake of redundancy.——→
701:
499:
321:
266:
129:
Please stop attacking me and actually address my complaint.
2151:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
1048:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
831:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
641:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
447:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
1606:
I'll be back after that. Thank you for reading this.——→
1312:
Uhhhh, why did you make two unblock requests in a row? —
1068:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
851:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
661:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
467:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1990:
1921:
1733:
1729:
1723:
1714:
1710:
1692:
1688:
1684:
992:
988:
982:
973:
969:
955:
951:
947:
771:
767:
761:
752:
748:
734:
730:
726:
569:
565:
559:
550:
546:
532:
528:
524:
391:
387:
381:
372:
368:
354:
350:
346:
1993:. This is less of a warning and more-of weekly spam. —
2155:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
930:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
709:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
507:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
329:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
2021:
No one called you a savage! GET OFF MY CASE!!! ——→
2117:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
256:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
2210:Also, how long will his majesty's block be?——→
123:I didn't start any edit war, don't accuse me.
8:
1672:is asking that his block be reviewed on the
790:taken as a indication the warnings were read
2143:During a dispute, you should first try to
1789:legitimate talk page comments, you may be
1176:discussing things in a civil manner, but
1847:. And that's not allowed on Knowledge. —
1387:conclusions is right up there among the
1886:Do not edit the contents of this page.
886:(Modified according to comment below.
675:1. In no way I was trying to bait you.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
2358:Thanks, will correct the link I use
1632:Please don't refactor my comments. —
2338:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
254:There is currently a discussion at
24:
1871:
1776:
249:
179:
29:
81:the village of Briarcliff Manor
1:
2145:discuss controversial changes
2105:from editing for a period of
1674:Unblock Ticket Request System
884:) 11:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
279:from editing for a period of
149:21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
107:20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
201:Don't spam talk pages again.
934:, who declined the request.
713:, who declined the request.
511:, who declined the request.
333:, who declined the request.
317:Request for unblock Comment
2390:
2342:Knowledge:Image use policy
1834:18:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
1814:22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1767:13:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1649:17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1616:20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1579:19:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1545:19:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1527:18:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1503:17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1486:16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1465:16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1437:16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1415:15:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1401:17:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1375:17:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1351:16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1329:16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1290:15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1258:16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1224:15:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1209:15:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1191:15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1148:: I've just had a read of
1139:14:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1114:14:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
1091:13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
1042:00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
1020:14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
915:14:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
896:15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
825:13:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
803:10:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
696:02:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
634:09:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
619:09:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
597:01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
494:01:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
441:01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
419:00:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
312:22:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
246:21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
220:20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
195:Knowledge, as you did at
2368:18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
2354:18:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
2325:22:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
2304:14:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
2290:10:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
2266:08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
2234:22:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2220:22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2197:16:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2169:16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2127:guide to appealing blocks
2119:make useful contributions
2083:15:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2062:15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2046:15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2031:15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2007:14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
1986:14:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
1963:11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
1938:10:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
1150:Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut
1052:guide to appealing blocks
835:guide to appealing blocks
645:guide to appealing blocks
451:guide to appealing blocks
293:guide to appealing blocks
285:make useful contributions
166:but not in this talk page
1864:19:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
1389:List of cognitive biases
1214:latest unblock request.
189:without further warning
2097:
1665:
1535:disruptive behaviour.
1122:that led to a block. —
927:
706:
504:
326:
271:
2137:Your reason here ~~~~
2125:by first reading the
2096:
1884:of past discussions.
1785:. If you continue to
1720:change block settings
1664:
979:change block settings
926:
758:change block settings
705:
556:change block settings
503:
378:change block settings
325:
303:Your reason here ~~~~
291:by first reading the
270:
42:of past discussions.
18:User talk:StephenTS42
1791:blocked from editing
1269:I really think that
187:blocked from editing
114:Norwalk, Connecticut
1593:Boing! said Zebedee
1537:Boing! said Zebedee
1512:Boing! said Zebedee
1495:Boing! said Zebedee
1422:Boing! said Zebedee
1407:Boing! said Zebedee
1382:Boing! said Zebedee
1265:Boing! said Zebedee
1250:Boing! said Zebedee
1231:Boing! said Zebedee
1216:Boing! said Zebedee
1183:Boing! said Zebedee
888:Boing! said Zebedee
878:Boing! said Zebedee
626:Boing! said Zebedee
611:Boing! said Zebedee
2153:dispute resolution
2123:request an unblock
2113:and violating the
2098:
1783:disruptive editing
1746:UTRS appeal #18076
1666:
1235:Oh? I thought you
928:
707:
505:
327:
289:request an unblock
272:
191:the next time you
2175:Extension of TBAN
2115:three-revert rule
2073:
2070:talk page watcher
1914:
1913:
1896:
1895:
1890:current talk page
1781:Please stop your
1355:
1074:Alright then... —
899:
859:Assume Good Faith
636:
309:Black Kite (talk)
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2381:
2335:
2314:
2279:
2208:
2140:
2067:
2020:
2002:
1997:
1981:
1976:
1947:
1933:
1928:
1905:
1898:
1897:
1875:
1874:
1868:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1780:
1749:
1748:
1739:
1737:
1726:
1711:abuse filter log
1708:
1706:deleted contribs
1646:
1641:
1636:
1631:
1596:
1576:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1515:
1475:
1462:
1457:
1452:
1447:
1425:
1385:
1364:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1338:
1326:
1321:
1316:
1311:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1268:
1234:
1174:
1166:
1161:
1156:
1136:
1131:
1126:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1065:
1059:
998:
996:
985:
967:
965:deleted contribs
925:
885:
848:
842:
777:
775:
764:
746:
744:deleted contribs
704:
693:
688:
683:
673:
658:
652:
622:
575:
573:
562:
544:
542:deleted contribs
502:
491:
486:
481:
464:
458:
397:
395:
384:
366:
364:deleted contribs
324:
306:
253:
252:
243:
238:
233:
217:
212:
207:
197:User talk:JJBers
183:
135:
93:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2389:
2388:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2329:
2308:
2273:
2244:
2202:
2177:
2172:
2157:page protection
2130:
2090:
2014:
2000:
1995:
1991:Are you serious
1979:
1974:
1951:Request denied!
1941:
1931:
1926:
1922:After this edit
1919:
1901:
1872:
1859:
1854:
1849:
1841:
1821:
1809:
1804:
1799:
1774:
1755:
1744:
1743:
1727:
1717:
1703:
1682:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1625:
1590:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1555:
1509:
1469:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1441:
1419:
1379:
1358:
1346:
1341:
1336:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1305:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1262:
1228:
1170:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1071:
1063:
1057:
1056:, then use the
1045:
1023:
986:
976:
962:
945:
938:blocking policy
923:
854:
846:
840:
839:, then use the
828:
806:
765:
755:
741:
724:
717:blocking policy
702:
691:
686:
681:
667:
664:
656:
650:
649:, then use the
638:
600:
563:
553:
539:
522:
515:blocking policy
500:
489:
484:
479:
470:
462:
456:
455:, then use the
444:
422:
385:
375:
361:
344:
337:blocking policy
322:
319:
314:
296:
264:
250:
241:
236:
231:
227:
215:
210:
205:
177:
131:
89:
77:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2387:
2385:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2356:
2292:
2250:
2243:
2242:Infobox images
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2176:
2173:
2099:You have been
2091:
2089:
2086:
2065:
2064:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
1940:
1918:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1906:
1894:
1893:
1876:
1845:fourm shopping
1840:
1839:Fourm Shopping
1837:
1820:
1819:Re: your email
1817:
1787:delete or edit
1773:
1770:
1753:
1741:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1476:No comment! —→
1377:
1365:No comment!——→
1356:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1194:
1193:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1094:
1093:
1046:
1030:
1026:Decline reason
1007:
1003:Request reason
1000:
921:
919:
917:
904:
901:
900:
829:
813:
809:Decline reason
786:
782:Request reason
779:
700:
699:
698:
678:
676:
674:
639:
607:
603:Decline reason
584:
580:Request reason
577:
498:
497:
496:
445:
429:
425:Decline reason
406:
402:Request reason
399:
320:
318:
315:
273:You have been
265:
263:
260:
248:
226:
223:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
154:
153:
152:
151:
127:
124:
118:
117:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2386:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2333:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2312:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2277:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2253:
2248:
2241:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2206:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2174:
2171:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2138:
2134:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2103:
2095:
2087:
2085:
2084:
2081:
2078:
2071:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2018:
2008:
2005:
2003:
1998:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1977:
1971:
1968:Calling me a
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1945:
1939:
1936:
1934:
1929:
1923:
1916:
1910:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1899:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1877:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1865:
1862:
1857:
1852:
1846:
1838:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1818:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1771:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1754:
1751:
1747:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1725:
1721:
1716:
1712:
1707:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1693:global blocks
1690:
1689:active blocks
1686:
1681:
1676:
1675:
1671:
1663:
1658:
1650:
1647:
1642:
1637:
1629:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1601:
1594:
1580:
1577:
1572:
1567:
1559:
1554:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1513:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1445:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1383:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1309:
1291:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1272:
1266:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1232:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1175:
1173:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1121:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1062:
1055:
1053:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1029:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1006:
1004:
999:
994:
990:
984:
980:
975:
971:
966:
961:
957:
956:global blocks
953:
952:active blocks
949:
944:
939:
935:
933:
932:administrator
920:
916:
912:
908:
897:
893:
889:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
864:
860:
856:
855:
853:
852:
845:
838:
836:
827:
826:
822:
818:
812:
810:
805:
804:
800:
796:
791:
785:
783:
778:
773:
769:
763:
759:
754:
750:
745:
740:
736:
735:global blocks
732:
731:active blocks
728:
723:
718:
714:
712:
711:administrator
697:
694:
689:
684:
671:
666:
665:
663:
662:
655:
648:
646:
637:
635:
631:
627:
620:
616:
612:
606:
604:
599:
598:
594:
590:
583:
581:
576:
571:
567:
561:
557:
552:
548:
543:
538:
534:
533:global blocks
530:
529:active blocks
526:
521:
516:
512:
510:
509:administrator
495:
492:
487:
482:
476:
472:
471:
469:
468:
461:
454:
452:
443:
442:
438:
434:
428:
426:
421:
420:
416:
412:
405:
403:
398:
393:
389:
383:
379:
374:
370:
365:
360:
356:
355:global blocks
352:
351:active blocks
348:
343:
338:
334:
332:
331:administrator
316:
313:
310:
304:
300:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
269:
261:
259:
257:
247:
244:
239:
234:
224:
222:
221:
218:
213:
208:
202:
198:
194:
190:
188:
182:
174:
167:
163:
158:
157:
156:
155:
150:
147:
143:
139:
136:
134:
128:
125:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
110:
109:
108:
105:
101:
97:
94:
92:
86:
82:
74:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2254:
2249:
2245:
2184:
2178:
2142:
2136:
2111:edit warring
2106:
2100:
2066:
2034:
2013:
1969:
1950:
1920:
1902:
1885:
1879:
1842:
1822:
1794:
1775:
1756:
1752:
1742:
1715:creation log
1678:
1670:blocked user
1667:
1657:
1605:
1599:
1589:
1532:
1354:(refactored)
1304:
1244:
1236:
1171:
1145:
1120:previous ANI
1067:
1049:
1047:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1008:
1002:
1001:
974:creation log
941:
929:
902:
873:
865:
862:
850:
832:
830:
814:
808:
807:
789:
787:
781:
780:
753:creation log
720:
708:
660:
642:
640:
621:
602:
601:
585:
579:
578:
551:creation log
518:
506:
466:
448:
446:
430:
424:
423:
407:
401:
400:
373:creation log
340:
328:
302:
280:
274:
228:
200:
185:
178:
165:
161:
132:
90:
78:
60:
43:
37:
2360:Atlantic306
2346:StephenTS42
2332:Atlantic306
2317:StephenTS42
2311:Atlantic306
2296:Atlantic306
2282:StephenTS42
2276:Atlantic306
2258:Atlantic306
2212:StephenTS42
2023:StephenTS42
1955:StephenTS42
1878:This is an
1826:Max Semenik
1680:StephenTS42
1628:StephenTS42
1608:StephenTS42
1558:StephenTS42
1519:StephenTS42
1478:StephenTS42
1444:StephenTS42
1429:StephenTS42
1393:StephenTS42
1367:StephenTS42
1308:StephenTS42
1271:StephenTS42
1201:StephenTS42
1178:StephenTS42
1146:Observation
1034:Max Semenik
1012:StephenTS42
943:StephenTS42
907:StephenTS42
866:speculation
795:StephenTS42
722:StephenTS42
670:StephenTS42
589:StephenTS42
520:StephenTS42
411:StephenTS42
342:StephenTS42
225:My talkpage
184:You may be
36:This is an
2080:Wonderland
1772:April 2017
1697:autoblocks
970:filter log
863:accusation
749:filter log
547:filter log
433:PhilKnight
369:filter log
262:April 2017
175:April 2017
2340:, not in
2149:consensus
2147:and seek
2088:July 2017
1909:Archive 2
1903:Archive 1
1730:checkuser
1685:block log
1050:read the
989:checkuser
948:block log
833:read the
768:checkuser
727:block log
643:read the
566:checkuser
525:block log
449:read the
388:checkuser
347:block log
193:vandalize
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
2226:Primefac
2205:Primefac
2189:Primefac
2161:Favonian
2135:|reason=
2107:24 hours
2077:Dinah In
2054:Primefac
1701:contribs
960:contribs
739:contribs
537:contribs
359:contribs
301:|reason=
2179:I have
2133:unblock
2102:blocked
1881:archive
1759:UTRSBot
1724:unblock
1533:prevent
1243:Yes, I
1061:unblock
983:unblock
844:unblock
762:unblock
654:unblock
560:unblock
460:unblock
382:unblock
299:unblock
281:2 weeks
276:blocked
75:Norwalk
39:archive
2181:closed
2017:JJBers
1970:savage
1944:JJBers
1917:Notice
1472:JJBers
1361:JJBers
870:WP:AGF
475:WP:OWN
138:(talk)
96:(talk)
1668:This
1054:first
837:first
817:Yamla
647:first
453:first
16:<
2364:talk
2350:talk
2321:talk
2300:talk
2286:talk
2262:talk
2230:talk
2216:talk
2193:talk
2165:talk
2109:for
2058:talk
2042:talk
2038:only
2027:talk
1959:talk
1830:talk
1763:talk
1612:talk
1541:talk
1523:talk
1499:talk
1482:talk
1433:talk
1411:talk
1397:talk
1371:talk
1254:talk
1237:were
1220:talk
1205:talk
1187:talk
1168:and
1038:talk
1016:talk
911:talk
892:talk
882:talk
874:your
821:talk
799:talk
630:talk
615:talk
593:talk
437:talk
415:talk
162:must
146:coi)
104:coi)
85:here
2185:all
2159:.
1953:——→
1734:log
1600:all
1010:——→
993:log
940:).
918:---
903:---
772:log
719:).
570:log
517:).
477:. —
392:log
339:).
307:.
142:vbm
100:vbm
2366:)
2352:)
2323:)
2302:)
2288:)
2264:)
2232:)
2218:)
2195:)
2167:)
2139:}}
2131:{{
2060:)
2044:)
2029:)
1996:JJ
1975:JJ
1961:)
1927:JJ
1860:rs
1855:Be
1850:JJ
1832:)
1810:rs
1805:Be
1800:JJ
1793:.
1765:)
1757:--
1738:)
1728:•
1722:•
1718:•
1713:•
1709:•
1704:•
1699:•
1695:•
1691:•
1687:•
1677::
1645:rs
1640:Be
1635:JJ
1614:)
1575:rs
1570:Be
1565:JJ
1543:)
1525:)
1501:)
1484:)
1461:rs
1456:Be
1451:JJ
1435:)
1413:)
1399:)
1373:)
1347:rs
1342:Be
1337:JJ
1325:rs
1320:Be
1315:JJ
1286:rs
1281:Be
1276:JJ
1256:)
1245:am
1222:)
1207:)
1189:)
1165:rs
1160:Be
1155:JJ
1135:rs
1130:Be
1125:JJ
1110:rs
1105:Be
1100:JJ
1087:rs
1082:Be
1077:JJ
1064:}}
1058:{{
1040:)
1028::
1018:)
1005::
987:•
981:•
977:•
972:•
968:•
963:•
958:•
954:•
950:•
913:)
894:)
847:}}
841:{{
823:)
811::
801:)
784::
766:•
760:•
756:•
751:•
747:•
742:•
737:•
733:•
729:•
692:rs
687:Be
682:JJ
657:}}
651:{{
632:)
617:)
605::
595:)
582::
564:•
558:•
554:•
549:•
545:•
540:•
535:•
531:•
527:•
490:rs
485:Be
480:JJ
463:}}
457:{{
439:)
427::
417:)
404::
386:•
380:•
376:•
371:•
367:•
362:•
357:•
353:•
349:•
305:}}
297:{{
242:rs
237:Be
232:JJ
216:rs
211:Be
206:JJ
199:.
144:·
140:·
102:·
98:·
2362:(
2348:(
2334::
2330:@
2319:(
2313::
2309:@
2298:(
2284:(
2278::
2274:@
2260:(
2228:(
2214:(
2207::
2203:@
2191:(
2163:(
2141:.
2072:)
2068:(
2056:(
2040:(
2025:(
2019::
2015:@
2001:B
1980:B
1957:(
1946::
1942:@
1932:B
1892:.
1828:(
1797:—
1761:(
1736:)
1732:(
1683:(
1630::
1626:@
1610:(
1595::
1591:@
1560::
1556:@
1539:(
1521:(
1514::
1510:@
1497:(
1480:(
1474::
1470:@
1446::
1442:@
1431:(
1424::
1420:@
1409:(
1395:(
1384::
1380:@
1369:(
1363::
1359:@
1310::
1306:@
1267::
1263:@
1252:(
1233::
1229:@
1218:(
1203:(
1185:(
1172:ɱ
1036:(
1014:(
997:)
995:)
991:(
946:(
909:(
898:)
890:(
880:(
819:(
797:(
776:)
774:)
770:(
725:(
679:—
672::
668:@
628:(
613:(
591:(
574:)
572:)
568:(
523:(
435:(
413:(
396:)
394:)
390:(
345:(
203:—
133:ɱ
91:ɱ
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
