Well, I'm glad you figured it out. Now you just need to add it to the raw code of your signature with [[Special:Contributions/OckRaz]].
As for images on your user page -- that's acceptable, but they have to be hosted on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If it's hosted somewhere else it won't show up on the page. Under the "Toolbox" (which you have already found) there will a link saying "Upload file". There is a wizard that will help you with all the steps. It's important to remember that the image must either be a free-to-use image (e.g. in the public domain, licensed under a Creative Commons license, etc.) or the copyright must be owned by you. (The "fair use" exception probably wouldn't work because it's on your user page and not an article.) See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information. If you need help locating a free image, or if you have any questions about copyright or uploading, I can help you out with it. ...discospinstertalk04:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, OckRaz. You have new messages at Talk:Contragestion. Message added 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If you need any help with editing any articles, please let me know. I primarily edit articles on history, politics, and demographics here and I also lurk around the Wikipedia Reference Desk a lot. You said something about the morning after pill and implantation, so here are some good sources for you in regards to this:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danny Huston, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Kingdom and The Aviator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi there. I figured we might be able to resolve this without going to the talk page. The reason I've removed the edit you made from that section is that it's redundant: we make it clear that he opposed it, and, later on in that section, explain why he flipped. The quote doesn't add anything - it amounts to 'this is what the mandate is,' and the mandate is already well described in the article. It doesn't even clearly show him expressing opposition to it. And I've left the sources there because they are good if people want to get into the weeds of it. But given all that it doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. I realize it was a relatively big issue between him and Clinton but in terms of the PPACA article, it's more notable establishing why the mandate was included in the law the article covers. There are more appropriate pages to deal with Obama's historical health care positions that would seem more appropriate for the level of detail? But that level of detail is too much weight given it's not relevant to the law (as opposed to why he ultimately included it). Again, though, the addition of those great sources seem to cover it, don't you think? =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 16:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry, I just wanted to let you know that I've seen your message but I don't have time to respond right now - so please forgive my delay (hope to address it tonight). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought it was implicit with the idea that the focus in the campaign on their health plans was a contentious point of difference. But rather than a quote, couldn't we explicitly establish this:
"Clinton's plan would have required all Americans obtain coverage (in effect, an individual mandate), while Obama provided a subsidy but opposed the use of a mandate—a contentious divide in the primary campaign." (With this addition implying both ads and debates on it, given the sources)?
I know there are lots of policy matters on which candidates disagree but that don't become significant public divisions. At the same time, the section starts off with the sentence "Healthcare reform was a major topic of discussion..." and also emphasizes that "attention focused on the plans..." Therefore it seems to me that, in context, that edit would be sufficient clarification, if you're happy with it? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human embryogenesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi! Re your comment here, you make a compelling argument and I'm leaning toward agreeing with you, but I think you should move it to Talk:PPACA as that's what it's about and then the editors of that page can weigh in. If you wish to make a point about whether the material belongs at Barack Obama, then please put a comment at the bottom of the discussion thread and be sure to add an explanation of why you think the material doesn't belong here (see WP:NOREASON). Thanks! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henipavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamie Jackson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Adams (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josiah Quincy. 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.
Hello, OckRaz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, OckRaz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, OckRaz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude(talk)02:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I certainly am. Stop calling editors who disagree with you vandals, and get consensus for your edits before trying to edit-war them in. Acroterion(talk)21:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i take exception to that. i characterized an edit only after that editor had done the same to me. unless you're handing out warnings accross the board, you are out of line OckRaztalk21:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: there's no need for consensus when one is merely bringing the lede into agreement with what is in the body of an article's text. frankly, this 'consensus' rigamarole is pretty clearly a way to justify using the introduction to frame an issue. OckRaztalk21:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see a warning for disruptive editing just up the page. That's not the same thing as vandalism, which frequently involves the word "poop." Consensus is compulsory, not "rigamarole.". Stop trying to win disagreements with name-calling. Acroterion(talk)21:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring against consensus is generally seen as disruptive, so I think that's a fair assessment of your present conduct. Describing other editors as vandals implies that their contributions are not in good faith or are intentionally damaging. That is certainly not the case with SPECIFICO, nor with you. You are clearly editing in an attempt to better the encyclopedia too, but you are trying to bypass consensus and are calling other editors names. That's disruptive. Acroterion(talk)21:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do not agree with your use of the term name calling.
characterization of edits is fair game, and that is what i did, not call someone a name. i probably did use the wrong term in how i characterized. i'd not thought of vandalism in terms of four letter words or being scatological. i'll acknowledge making a mistake about the categories of unhelpful edits. i should have said specifico was engaged in disruptive editing.
OckRaz, you are welcome to make a case on the article talk page, where three editors disagree with you--and provided evidence for their claims. Please stop this pestering Acroterion on their talk page--you were warned about making personal attacks, so making more of them is probably not helpful. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been topic banned for two months from all pages and discussions concerning post-1992 American politics and related people.
You have been sanctioned for article editing and talkpage manner that are disruptive and characterized by a battleground approach. For instance, attempting to edit war this ridiculous prose into an article, or a response such as this to an opponent's argument, has nothing to do with collaborating to improve an article, or with civil discussion. Nor does this combative post where you characterize one post on your talkpage as "pestering" (obviously in retaliation for having yourself been asked to "stop pestering" a user). These are only a few examples of a larger corpus.
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).
If you don't care about being unblocked, don't make an unblock request. You were't blocked for saying something people didn't want to hear, you were blocked for harassment of another user. If you have grievances about how rules were applied, you may take them to WP:ANI once the block expires. I would advise you against doing so based on your recent edit history, but it's up to you. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
PS: To whomever it may concern, I don't actually care about getting unblocked. I just assumed that putting the comment into an unblock request would make it more likely that someone would actually see that I'm calling them out for their absurd application of rules. Leave up the block, unblock me, or extend it - IDGAF OckRaztalk04:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike and 331dot, I'll leave it to uninvolved admins, but I don't for my part think this on my page was much in the way of attacks or harassment. Venting on the occasion of a sanction is pretty normal. Bishonen | tålk10:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
"weren't blocked for saying something people didn't want to hear, you were blocked for harassment of another user" - the claim was that i was blocked because i attacked an editor. what did i do that allegedly constitutes an attack? well, this link defines the offense, but that just makes clear that what was deemed an attack was merely saying things people didn't want to hear.
"If you don't care about being unblocked, don't make an unblock request" - are you saying that to me in your official capacity? i don't see how my caring about things or not caring about them could possibly be within your purview. OckRaztalk16:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I declined it more because they say they don't care" - Are you actually saying that you don't evaluate claims based on the merits, but based upon people's feelings? OckRaztalk16:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "venting" is a very fair description, whereas one would need either to misapply a reasonable standard or else employ an unreasonable standard to call it an a "attack." I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the prior instance of what I would also call venting, you referred to as "retaliation" - which at least implies an attack.
From my perspective, this whole thing has had one unifying theme: it's all been about the questioning of standards. Initially, it was about a standard for when a wikipedia article can portray a claim as a lie. The status quo for what editors can do in the article seems egregiously low when compared with the much higher standard for how editors are supposed to refer to each others' honesty. I find it bizarre, and really an inversion of what the priorities should be if you're writing something that aspires to be a reference work everyone will trust.
The other standards have been about either what sort of characterizations count as attacks or about whether arguing counts as harassment - or if you prefer as "pestering." In principle, I think it's fine that I was blocked from Acroterion's talk page, but that's because user talk pages function like one's home, and by continuing to argue, I exhausted Acroterion's patience. So he should have been well within his rights to not continue to have me as a guest. I don't think it should have required any sort of adjudication.
In practice I think it's wrong to justify my not being welcome in his house (because I grew tiresome) by saying I needed to be punished (because I committed a rule violation. To then extend the punishment (which is actually for an unwritten rule about annoying people) to losing editing privileges in the encyclopedia itself really is a dubious use of standards. Finally, for 331dot to just come right out and say that his application of standards will be different based on whether or not I respect those standards and/or the way in which they're applied has just made me feel much more confident that they don't deserve respect. OckRaztalk18:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
were you involved somehow, or just commenting because you wanted to add your opinion? do you have some status that makes your opinion special? also, i find it curious that people seem to characterize criticism as attacks. why should i not point out that 331 seemed to be using irrelevant criteria rather than applying rules in an objective manner? OckRaztalk08:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this discussion. It's not a matter of your feelings, just logic- if you don't care about being unblocked, you shouldn't request it. Save your own time. You can feel however you wish to feel about it. I said it simply as a person, "official capacity" is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you're not using the word logic correctly. in rules based systems where one is evaluating behavior, the feelings of a person when they request that evaluation is what is irrelevant, not the status of the person tasked with performing the evaluation. OckRaztalk09:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is unreasonable for someone to have some skin in the game and actually care about what it is they are asking about. I also take not caring to mean that you had no contributions you wanted to make- since blocks only prevent editing, if you have no contributions to make, there is no need to unblock you. If you feel I have grossly erred here about this now expired 31 hour block, haul me into WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I feel is that you have a fundamentally flawed view of the proper way to exercise your authority. I've no intention of hauling you anywhere because my takeaway from the entire experience was that wikipedia itself has been corrupted. I just logged on for the first time in 3 months and answered a message I found waiting for me From Doug Weller. I'm not even sure why you're talking to me given that I didn't message you. OckRaztalk10:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any "authority", just some tools. Again I'm not sure what is unreasonable with thinking that you should have some desire to want to be unblocked and contribute. If you don't care, why should I? 331dot (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how having a tool that empowers you to affect what others are able to do is different from having authority, but that's not important. I think that the quickest way to make my point on the other matter is with an analogy:
Imagine that a man has been arrested and charged with a minor crime for which he will likely be held in jail over the weekend since he can't pay the fine. He's taken before a magistrate who will decide whether or not to find him guilty. Suppose that the accused appears distressed and says he doesn't care about the outcome of the hearing. Perhaps he's homeless and doesn't mind being in jail for a while.
Would it be appropriate for the magistrate to decide on that basis that he will declare the accused to be guilty as charged? There are multiple reasons why I think that would be inappropriate. OckRaztalk10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was not a judicial proceeding(and in most jurisdictions I am aware of if the accused does not offer a defense they are usually convicted, not found not guilty). This is a project to write an encyclopedia. If a user is not concerned with their ability to contribute towards that project, be it in general or just for the block duration, I see no need to take action. I'm a volunteer, I'm not going to volunteer my time for those who don't particularly care about participating here. This isn't a judicial proceeding where things like a criminal record play into it.
It doesn't make sense to me to be concerned about the application of policies/rules if you aren't concerned with the project itself. You were free to make another unblock request for someone else to review, and possobly someone with a different philosophy might have come along and agreed with you(though the short nature of that block reduces that chance). 331dot (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that my perspective does not make sense to you, but nor does yours to me.
I'm really not eager to argue at length about a block. Again, I didn't send a message to you. I was responding to a comment I found from someone else and asking what made my comment allegedly a "personal attack" (as opposed to a criticism of your decision), and why it was that this person was weighing in on the matter in the first place.
I will add a couple of things more, though. Saying you don't care if you're penalized is very different from not offering a defense, and both the analogy and the actual situation dealt only with the former and not the latter. Also, you're obviously correct that we're talking about writing a reference work and not a literal judicial proceeding, but that observation doesn't invalidate my analogy. As you've suggested, there's a philosophical difference underlying what we think the proper framing is for the situation.
Honestly, I think that "philosophical differences" about how to contextualize disagreements would be a good description of what I think has led to a kind of corruption in the website. Although I haven't been logged on in the last three months, I did speak to people about their opinions of wikipedia during that time. A number of them said they had become frustrated and given up on editing. OckRaztalk19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's their choice to do. They can either do that or stay and work to change the system to how they feel it should be. I'm guessing they don't want to volunteer their time to do that- which is fine. I'm a volunteer, too. If there is a rule that says I cannot do what it is that I did, please point it out. I don't think there's one, but I don't have every rule here committed to memory. I could be wrong.
If you or anyone wants to impose a certain philosophy on me/admins in general, there are forums to discuss that. Again, if you feel I have grossly erred here, please open a discussion so I can be chastised. I can take it and change. Saying we're "corrupt" is a misapplication of the word; too often it's used to mean "I disagree with what happens here and I don't think I can change it"(the latter part is not true, you can change it, but it takes work and time, which is in short supply for us all as volunteers). If people are frustrated, I want to hear what that is and see if it can be alleviated or explained. Perhaps it can't be, but this place has gotten by for many years with hundreds of thousands of editors okay for the most part because we figure out how to get along. This place isn't really that hard. There is nothing wrong with you thinking different than I or I from you, but it's not "corruption". It's just different. I'm sorry to use your time, I don't intend to bother you further. I hope you have a good day. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: "If you or anyone wants to impose a certain philosophy on me/admins in general, there are forums to discuss that." - I wasn't aware of that.
Where would I find them?
re: "Saying we're "corrupt" is a misapplication of the word... it's not "corruption". It's just different." - I don't think it's that simple.
I would suggest that there's a relationship between how we judge what is corruption and how we think about racism. For example, suppose a more liberal person tells a more conservative person that he is taking part in racist behavior. The latter would likely bridle at the idea, thinking that this is an indictment of his personal choices and his character. However, if the former was thinking about participation in systemic racism, then there's a mismatch between what the two of them are thinking and saying to each other.
Similarly, I'm not using the term "corruption" to refer to deliberate individual acts of dishonesty, but to systemic corruption which is a product of things like misaligned incentives and inconsistent application of vague directives. I'm not talking about conspiracies but about people with shared biases independently acting in a way that has the same corrosive effect as coordination would. You may not like that characterization any better, but I suspect it's different from what you had previously believed my claim to be.
The Village Pump is probably the best place to discuss an idea and formulate/offer a proposal.I kinda think this has been blown out of proportion and I've probably helped, for which I'm sorry. If you had just said "I made a mistake and I won't do it again" I would likely have ended such a short block. By saying you didn't care, you misused the unblock request template which is for requesting to be unblocked. There are ways to communicate something without requesting unblock if you have no interest in being unblocked. I do evaluate claims on the merits- when that is what is requested. By your own admission you weren't and said you didn't give a f. Anyway, I really have said too much. I will not bother you further. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"you misused the unblock request template" - I find that interesting. Such an interpretation hadn't even occurred to me.
I take it that your interpretation of my saying that I didn't care was that I had no preference as to whether or not I remained blocked. That wasn't what I meant. I legitimately wanted the block removed, to some degree because I didn't want to lose the ability to make edits. Even more, though, it was because I felt it would leave a black mark on my record that could follow me and have some unknown negative impacts in the future.
What I was expressing by saying that I didn't care wasn't indifference to the penalty. I was angry and expressing contempt for the overall process. I don't want to rehash it all now, but my perspective was that there were at least three rules/principles that are supposed to be observed universally (without needing to get consensus support), but they were being ignored. My arguing on talk pages that consensus was not necessary was deemed to be disruption that deserved punishment.
Anyway, my point is just that I thought it was absurd. I didn't care about the judgment that would be made regarding the equivalent of an appeal to a guilty verdict because I thought that the underlying charge was ridiculous. So, I had a real desire to not get the penalty, but I was saying that I didn't care about (or have any regard for) what I regarded as an absurd process.
If I had actually been saying I was as happy being blocked as not - then I would see your point. I think I agree with you that in those circumstances it would actually be a misuse of the unblock request. OckRaztalk07:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A couple things. One, I would really appreciate it if you could take a moment to change your signature to [[User:OckRaz|<b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">''Raz''</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:OckRaz|<b style="color:Green;">talk</b>]]</sup>. It will look the exact same, but will not create WP:LINT errors that other people have to clean up after.Two, I am going to offer you an unsolicited view on the above exchange. I am a fellow non-admin, which allows my approach to analysis to be entirely philosophical. The sole reason we block people is to prevent further disruption. Let's say that Bob was adding copyrighted materials to Wikipedia, and is subsequently blocked to stop further copyvios. Bob cares about being blocked; he really wants to be unblocked. If Bob is unblocked, he is unlikely to add more copyvios lest he be blocked again. Because Bob would stop adding copyvio on his own, he no longer needs to be forced to stop by way of a block. Thus, it no longer serves a preventative purpose and the block can be lifted.A corollary of this principle – that blocked people who truly want to be unblocked are unlikely to repeat said behaviour – is that people who do not care about what happens to their appeal are more likely to repeat the blockable behaviour, and thus likely need to stay blocked to prevent further disruption. I see why 331dot declined your unblock request: he was not convinced that the alleged personal attacks would stop if unblocked. (Note that I have not looked into any of the background besides this thread, so I am not saying that you did personally attack someone, nor am I saying that you did not. In any event, your appeal contained no evidence that you merely said "a thing one doesn't like to hear", so it likely would be declined on the merits, too.) Wishing you all the best, HouseBlastertalk23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I think that is what my signature is currently. I don't see a difference.
2) I understand your argument to be that a person expressing a desire to be unblocked is more likely to cease to commit an offense that caused him to receive a block.
However, my position was that I hadn't committed an actual transgression, but I would file a formal protest to get it reversed even though I had no confidence that my appeal would get a fair hearing. My saying that I didn't care was to express contempt for the process and that I didn't care about (or value) the judgment that the process would produce - not that I was indifferent to being blocked or not. I very much disliked the idea of getting blocked. OckRaztalk06:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh - maybe i do see a difference.
is it about one way having a bunch of single quote marks in it: '''''
The new signature looks identical, on purpose. The issue with lint is not the "what", but the "how". The key difference is that the new one does not have any <font>...</font> tags. Font tags have been obsolete since 2014, meaning that browsers, parsers, etc., will eventually stop recognizing them properly.I understand your perspective, too. HouseBlastertalk22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:UAM-BW.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
