User talk:Errorminor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Errorminor (talk • contribs • block logauto • sspsuspected socks) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Fourth Succession War. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Mayalld 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Errorminor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mayalld 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I didn't do anything wrong. Please revert KnowledgeOfSelf's edits."

Decline reason: "You disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, and abused multiple accounts. — -- lucasbfr talk 12:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "That is wrong, I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I don't see how turning PRODed articles into redirects in order to save page history is disruption. It is improving Wikipedia. You should be thanking me, not blocking me."

Decline reason: "Does the fact that you've been blocked under several usernames give you any indication that perhaps your edits are not as helpful as you believe them to be? Open your heart to the possibility that not all prods need to be redirects, and that 'plague of deletionist disruption' is not very polite. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "All the articles I was editing need to be turned into redirects in order to save page history. Many people still read redirected articles. For example, I read the redirected Pokemon articles in the history pages."

Decline reason: "No. You were clearly abusing multiple accounts. The page history is saved, no matter what, even if deleted. Please make further any requests to review your block, via WP:ARBCOM, or, via the unblock-en-l mailing list. — SQLQuery me! 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Please revert this; the reliable secondary sources are at the bottom of the article.

Secondary sources are sources outside the game itself; newspaper articles, magazine articles, and that sort of thing. The game itself is not an independent source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, all these articles are still highly notable. All deletionists should be blocked for vandalism.

For the record, anyone is allowed to remove a prod. My objection is to your inappropriately inflammatory edit summaries, which I know I asked you to stop on one of your various sockpuppets. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet all the edits are still reverted. The edit summaries are not inflammatory, they are true. I bet the deletionists themselves probably even like them and are proud of the disruption that their witch hunting causes.
I have left a message to another user regarding the appropriate steps to take after a prod is removed. However, I cannot take you seriously, because you appear unable to make an edit which does not contain a personal attack. And that is why I won't unblock you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so we don't need editors who can't work together with people they disagree with. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't work with vandals. I punish them.
Yes, that sums up why I think you should remain blocked. Because you think of people who disagree with you as vandals to be punished, and refuse to work with them. Thank you for confirming it so clearly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
People who revert perfectly good edits are vandals.
You are incorrect. This is vandalism. Disagreeing with you is not vandalism, it's just a person who disagrees with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet, I was blocked because they disagreed with me. They are the ones who reverted and blocked me. Anyways, you are ones who cannot take criticism. Anyone that Wikipedians disagree with gets almost immediately labeled as a "troll," "sock puppet," "meat puppet," their edits become known as "disruption" or "vandalism," and they get get reverted and blocked. You are all a huge, ignorant hivemind.
I have not called you a troll or a vandal, have I? You are a sockpuppet, so it's hard to understand why you object to being called one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I am also speaking of the way most people are treated on Wikipedia in general, as I have observed.
It sounds like you don't like Wikipedia. I guess it's good for you that you won't be editing here any more, since you don't like it anyway. Goodbye. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I love Wikipedia. I just hate the ignorant vandals who edit it, like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Errorminor (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Errorminor (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Pagrashtak 19:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)