User talk:Wordfunk

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian pariah dog, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Outsider and Admixture. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop posting User talk:Jim1138. You're courting a harassment problem. Tiderolls,

:You were warned once already - this is your final warning. Drop the argument and move on, if you continue the posts on this subject at User talk:Jim1138, you will be blocked for harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Let's look closer at this. An editor @Jim1138: made an erroneous and damaging accusation, and replaced completely duplicated content immediately below where I had merely paragraphized it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_pariah_dog&type=revision&diff=698627459&oldid=698623438 Here, under History section]. I politely requested that he looked at the mistake, and removed and eraze it the erroneous and damaging accusation from my talk page. He refused to do so, and now you block me? And you still don't don't remove and eraze the tag, even though it would take less effort than doing all this? Explain why. Why should I have to live with an erroneous and damaging accusation? Wasn't I the one who was being falsely harassed? Is the voluntary work I did of no value at all to the Wikipedia? Was it not the right thng to do, to remove the immediately duplicated material? Wordfunk (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC) | decline = You were told multiple times to stay off his talk page. You were given a final warning. You broke that final warning. Block is totally justified and nothing you've said above provides a good reason to remove the block as you haven't even addressed the reason for the block: your harassment and continual posted at his talk page despite being warned not to. only (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)}}

• I would advise you to delete your unblock request and resubmit after you have read the WP:GAB. Your request does not address the issue that resulted in the block and will almost certainly be declined. Tiderolls 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your acknowledgement, you were edit warring in a content dispute (it may not fit your personal definition of either, but it does fit Wikipedia's definition of both). You then began asking Jim1138 to apologize and remove the warning. That user declined multiple such requests, but advised (above on this page) "feel free to do so yourself". Rather than doing so, you continued to hound the other user over this, despite being warned by two different admins to stop the harassment. The block was 100% appropriate. When the block expires, you are strongly advised to not resume the harassment - doing so will simply result in longer term blocks. Instead, try moving onto article improvements. If you need help, feel free to seek assistance at either the Wikipedia:Help desk or to seek guidance on the community at Wikipedia:Teahouse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=

Not one of you, even now, can address the matter of {{Ping|Jim1138}} reverting a complete duplication of the 3 paragraphs immediately above it.

Do you think I am stupid?

I cannot remove and eraze the erroneous warning. User privileges do not allow me to do so.

You know this. I know you know this. It would always remain there to be use against me, and Jim1138 knows this too.

Instead, you're all desperately ignoring it, circling the wagons around to protect one of your own and turning it on me ... which only empowers Jim to be even more of an asshole to the next person who comes along, and gives their time to improve an article which has had a clean up tag on it for years.

Why the would or should anyone have to suck that up? And why would they come back for more?

What is this website about, the content or protecting fragile egos who cannot admit when they did something wrong?

Wordfunk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)|decline=Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)}}

• Again, I would advise you to delete your unblock request and resubmit after you have read the WP:GAB. Your request does not address the issue that resulted in the block and will almost certainly be declined. Bear in mind that abusing the unblock template, which is what you're doing by posting request reasons that have previously been declined, can lead to the loss of the ability to edit this page. By the way, you are able to remove any warning from your user talk. Tiderolls 19:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I am asking for the original unblock request to be re-considered as you ignored the root cause of it. Don't tell me that it was a content dispute because no one ever, not even @Jim1138:, has disputed that the material was an unnecessary and non-beneficial duplication. Thank you Wordfunk (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) | decline = Again, not an actual unblock request. You're wasting our times by not actually using the unblock template for its intended purpose, therefore, I am disabling your ability to edit this talk page for the rest of the block. only (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)}}

Your most recent sockpuppet account has been blocked per Wikipedia policy. Note that socks used for block evasion can be blocked immediately, and edits reverted.

Due to the talk page of your original account (this page) also being blocked due to your abuse of talk page privileges, your only remaining acceptable method to discuss your block or to request its removal is by using Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System.

Note that prior to starting that discussion, it's highly recommended that you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

:It has been suggested at WP:ANI that when you requested "removal", you meant that you wanted a "Revision deletion".

:If that is the case, please note that (a) Jim1138 also does not have the ability to perform a RevDel, and (b) even if he did, Wikipedia policy restricts the use of RevDel to only specific situations - it's not a tool that admins have free-will to utilize as they personally choose. Performing a RevDel on the warning on your talk page would not be an appropriate use of the tool per that policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

::Note also that I have restored talk page access on this page. Should abuse of the {{tl|unblock}} template resume, or other talk page abuse take place, that access could potentially be revoked at a later date. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I stopped reading posts by your sock accounts over a week or two ago (most are reverted by other editors and admins before I even see them - and I fully welcome those reverts on my talk page); but I saw your edit at user talk:C.Fred. As to your claim to C.Fred that we are having a "discussion", there is nothing to discuss - see WP:STICK.

As to your claim of not socking, you should read WP:Sockpuppet, which expressly prohibits the use of additional accounts to evade a block. Despite your claims, you are socking - just as despite your claims, you were harassing Jim1138, and despite your claims you were in a content dispute, and edit warring is not acceptable regardless of which version is a claimed improvement (few exceptions exist, and none of those apply to your case). Everything that has taken place has been a direct result of your own actions, and your utter and complete disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which have been mentioned to you from the very start. It's unfortunate that you cannot see that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)