User talk:2tuntony

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 2tuntony, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Paul Marcinkus. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been a bit hesitant since making what was probably an ill-advised edit to Lee Harvey Oswald a few days ago, so I'm quite happy to be met with approval. 2tuntony (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Preview

Try using the preview button. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A very good idea. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research

How did you determine that Kowalski is a "verified" case? This is NOT about your opinion, Wikipedia should reflect outside sources.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. It reflects outside sources, as approved by WP:RS, rather than those "required" by those who feel that they own the article. 2tuntony (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

Hi 2tuntony. I have made a contribution re: Claude Choules on the surviving veterans discussion page which may be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldovanmickey (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded there. I wish to extend my most sincere thanks, for your comments, as well as your research. I continue to be amazed at the lengths to which editors will go, on their own time, to attempt to improve articles. 2tuntony (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Heart (band)

Thanks!
Although I don't agree with everything you say, it's a pleasant change to have a more objective editor involved. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I took a cursory glance at that article, and realized that it needed much work. Please let me know what you disagree with, and feel free to make any changes to what I've done. 2tuntony (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

and realized that it needed much work - I see you are a master of the art of understatement ...

Please let me know what you disagree with - Nothing worth specifically mentioning.

and feel free to make any changes to what I've done - Thanks. If I ever feel the need ...

Again: Thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome! 2tuntony (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Threshold knowledge

There is a discussion at WT:Talk page guidelines#WP:TPO clarification regarding the fact that you have been repeatedly removing another editor's comment at Talk:Threshold knowledge. While it is often desirable to remove soapboxing or totally misguided comments from talk pages, repeatedly removing a harmless comment is not helpful. The talk page guidelines make no provision for the repeated removal of such comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dana Perino

Hello. You have my response to your comments at at Talk:Dana Perino's talk page. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Dana Perino. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

2tuntony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't see where I violated this rule. I would appreciate if someone would point that out to me, as I have checked the page history, and truly don't see it. Assuming I did however, it clearly lists, under the numerous exemptions, removing BLP information that is libelous, false, poorly sourced, ect. I have demonstrated in great detail, on the talk page, why the information is incorrect, and per BLP standards, must be removed. It's also quite curious that almost the exact instant I was blocked another user reverted the article back to his preferred version. Furthermore, I never received any notice that I had been reported anywhere, so I never even had the chance to defend myself. I would ask Spike Wilbury if he read the article talk page, where I explain, in detail, how the edits that I removed were in clear violation of BLP policy.

Decline reason:

The link that Spike Wilbury posted below should answer your first concern. I just read the article talk page. I agree that this was at best an unclear BLP situation. At worst, the policy simply does not apply--we do not have to apply it so slavishly as to reflect word for word, with every qualification, what a source says. Notice is not a requirement. I'm glad you were discussing this on talk, but that doesn't keep you from violating 3RR.Chaser (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

No matter how this works out, I would like to commend Chaser for at least having the integrety to go to Lord Wilbury's talk page, and ask why the complaintant was not blocked, as well. 2tuntony (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You were warned here, and dismissed the warning as "nonsense". You were then reported at the Edit warring noticeboard here. Removing this text under the guise of BLP is questionable at best, and tendentious at worst. I read the source. Since the discussion was ongoing and a source was provided, you should have stopped reverting and gained consensus to remove the text. Take the next 24 hours or so to reflect on Wikipedia:Consensus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

2tuntony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not an actual unblock request. After the way I've been treated, I really don't care if I'm unblocked, as I don't plan to continue to contribute to such an obviously corrupt project. I am using the unblock request as a means of ensuring that the little boy who calls himself "Spike Willbury" gets to see it. I dismissed it as nonsense because the complaintant engaged in the very behavior of which he accused me. The instant I was blocked the complaintant returned the very statement that has been proven false on the talk page. Once again, I did not break 3RR. I asked for proof of this. Of course it was not provided, as it did not happen. The complaintant has just as many reverts as I do, and again, reverted to his preferred version the instant I was blocked. How, may I ask, is he not edit warring? That you would block me, while taking no action against him proves that the two of you are co-conspirators. I suppose Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so long as they don't step on the toes of the cronies of the thug administrators who run the place. As far as "consensus" goes, I am not the only one who reverted his biased additions. But that's not good enough, since he's one of your buddies. Henceforth, it's not enough that another editor removed his edit, as original research, and I seconded that, while showing that it was also a clear BLP violation. You are an absolute disgrace. I'm not sure if you were picked on a lot in school, if you have a really small dick, or if your just an asshole. You are obviously the one who needs to "reflect", as your actions have cost this project a very good editor. Fuck you, and the horse in on which you rode.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. I would equally point to WP:NOTTHEM and WP:CIV, especially after reading the last few lines of this "request". Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

You figured out all by yourself that this is not an unblock request? You must be one of the smart ones. WP:NOTTHEM? That you would "point" me to something that absurdly unfair illustrates my point beautifully. Any administrator can come along and block the new guy, while giving no consequences to a friend of his who does the exact, and I do mean exact same thing. And if the new guy actually has the audacity to point it out, the administrator, instead of being accountable, simply says, "NOTTHEM". Sort of like papal infallibility. Thank you for being so kind as to point me to that. His Highness, The Most Honourable Spike Willbury has already pointed me to the door. 2tuntony (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I virtually never check the age of an account when dealing with unblock requests, except when it seem explicitly relevant (For example, to determine if someone might be making newbie mistakes or seems to experienced based upon the account age). After all, WP:3RR applies to everyone regardless of account age. Hence, if i clearly cross it i would likely be blocked as well, simple as that. The reference to WP:NOTTHEM was made because half the unblock request deals with accusations towards another editor. True or not, an unblock request deals with the block of a particular person, and not with the circumstances surrounding it. If you wish to raise a point regarding another editor that's entirely fine, but please keep it polite and don't resort to swearing and calling WP:CABAL :). However, if you wish to point out issues regarding other editors, you may wish to use {{adminhelp}} instead of the unblock template - the purpose of the latter is requesting an unblock, and requests that point to other editors are generally quickly declined. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

2tuntony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The user who had me blocked, has now, himself gone way past 3 reverts in the last 24 hours on the same article. Please explain why this user has not been blocked. I don't need to hear any more of the NOTTHEM shit, as I'm not asking to be unblocked. The Spike & Therefore duo have cleverly set this up so that I can't report him. So this unblock request is, for all intents and purposes, the only way I can inquire about this. There has to be one administrator who is on the level in this place. Why was I blocked, when I had not the right, but rather the duty to remove BLP inaccuracies? Why was I not given a chance to defend myself at the administrator's noticeboard, even though the complaintant never notified me after making the report, as required? Why has User:Therefore not been blocked, when he has clearly violated 3RR with his most recent edits? Why is one user allowed to own an article, when policy clearly states that is not permissable? I've made a lot of good contributions to this encyclopedia, and I enjoy it. I'm willing to chalk my experience with Spike Wilbur up to one bad apple in the bunch. I realize admins stick together, and I get the fact that no one is willing to go over another administrator's head, and unblock me. The fact is User:Therefore has clearly broken 3RR. I have a hard time believing that any one user could have every single administrator here in his pocket? Spike Wilbur should see that this user has broken the same rule, at the same article. Obviously he's not going to do anything to rectify a situation that he created. I don't care about being unblocked. If Therefore is blocked, it will go a long way towards restoring my respect for this project. Is there one fair administrator here who will at least answer the questions I have posed?

Decline reason:

As this is not an unblock request, I am formally declining it. However, I have blocked User:Therefore for 24 hours as well, as both of you were involved in this. I would suggest that when your blocks expire, you discuss the issue on the talk page and reach a consensus which both of you (and other editors who edit the article) can agree on. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

I would add, that at User talk:Spike Wilbury, User:Chaser has asked why User:Therefore has not been blocked, and has posted the edit diff for Therefore's fourth revert. 2tuntony (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

2tuntony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to express my gratitude for the integrety of both Phantomsteve and Chaser. On the basis of principle, I feel I must continue to contest what I feel was an unjust block. The fact remains that I was blocked for doing something that according to my honest interpretation of Wikipedia policy,-which I stated clearly before I was blocked- was not merely permissible, but rather required by Wikipedia policy. The fact remains that an administrator not only blocked me without giving me a chance to say anything in my defense, but also ignored the fact that the complaintant had openly engaged in the very behavior of which he accused me. This administrator then came to this talk page and chastised me further, while turning a blind eye to the fact that User:Therefore was meanwhile back making numerous reverts to the article that he had rendered me powerless to edit. This admin said, "removing this text under the guise of BLP is questionable at best, tendentious at worst." Fisrt of all, I don't appreciate the word "guise". It's not like I claimed that defense after the fact. I said all along, on both the complaintant's talk page, and the article talk page, that the edits violated BLP, while making extensive comments showing exactly why they were not correct. There was no "guise" as I was as transparent as can be about my reasons for removing the edits. Secondly, with "questionable at best", "tendentious at worst", I would think that an administrator, of all people would err on the side of questionable; especially in the case of an editor with no history of trouble. He could have reviewed the situation, and explained to me that the way I was citing the policy was questionable. There was no call to block for a first "offense".

Decline reason:

Yet another use of an unblock request not to request an unblock but to complain about the behaviour of others. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

You were perfectly free to express your disagreement with other editors on this talk page, but choosing to continually abuse unblock requests to do so wastes the time of administrators, so I am withdrawing your talk page access for the duration of your block. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Edits such as [1] and [2] are grossly inappropriate. Given that you have recently been blocked for inappropriate editing, I have blocked you for an additional 48 hours. You may, if you wish, use the {{unblock}} template to request an unblock, if you so desire. However, I strongly advise that you use this time to review the policies on personal attacks and causing disruption. These policies apply just as much to edit summaries as they do to anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

2tuntony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Will someone please unblock me? This is ridiculous. Blocked for 48 hours for using sarcasm in an edit summary? WP:ADMINABUSE states that all administrators must be willing to account for their actions. I should have known better. This is quite obviously just retaliation for daring to demand accountability from an administrator who abused his authority. This particular administrator actually has, "Wikipedia is free as in freedom", written on his user page. Perhaps he should add the caveat, "unless you dare to challenge one of us"..

Decline reason:

Attacking others in your unblock request is the surest way get your request denied. Frankly, I think some of the previous admins were too nice to you. If I had been the one to review the request with the part about not knowing if they had a small dick or were just an asshole, I can assure you that you would have been reblocked for a lot longer than 48 hours. As you have made numerous unblock requests already and yet still do not seem to grasp how to go about it properly I am revoking your ability to appeal in this manner for the duration of this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

{{unblock|I am under the impression that the block was due to expire several hours ago. I am asking to be unblocked based on the grounds that the block has been served in its entirety.}}

{{adminhelp}}

Is there an additional reason that this adminhelp was used? The unblock request goes into a queue and an IRC channel, you never need to use adminhelp regarding an unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the adminhelp template as a precaution. I have twice had talk page access restricted, as a punishment for requesting to be unblocked. Just in case one of those guys made their way back here to deny the request, and restrict talk page access again, I figured I would add the template, and hope if I couldn't use the talk page to request unblock, at least it would be seen. 2tuntony (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't do it again. And don't accuse admins of providing punishment: removal of talkpage access is due to abuse of the unblock process only - using adminhelp for that purpose would meet that abuse. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you say, "don't do it again"? I read the template page, and it says that the template can be used in this case. While it does say that it is recommended to use the unblock template, it says that is because it assures a response. I see nothing there to back up your ordering me to not do it again. I had a very real concern of having my unblock request denied, and having my talk page use restricted. Your statement that "using adminhelp for that purpose would meet that abuse" seems to validate my claim, as I see nothing whatsoever to substantiate what you have said. 2tuntony (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're currently unblocked. Here's the best idea: don't get blocked again. If you do, do not ever use the adminhelp template again. Pointe finale (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine idea, and I don't have any intention of getting blocked. However, as to your "pointe finale", I must again ask, "Why?". As I have told you, I read the adminhelp template page, and it is clearly stated there, that the template may be used by users requesting assistance with blocks. So I must truly question what right you have to tell me, "don't ever do it again." You may wish to consider reading WP:BULLY. 2tuntony (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Per, Template:adminhelp: "If you require help in regards to blocking, you can use {{adminhelp}}. 2tuntony (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a question about unblocking (that is, require assistance), then use adminhelp. If you already have an active unblock request or are requesting to be unblocked, no don't. This isn't rocket science. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, dude-you told me, "don't ever do it again", and I'm just telling you what the page says. If you have this big an issue with it, maybe you should bring it up at the template page talk page. 2tuntony (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, you've been around for what, a month and a half? You've been blocked twice, and twice have had access to your talkpage removed for improper use of the talkpage while blocked. Remember, everything you have ever done on Wikipedia is viewable forever, and you clearly deserved both blocks and both removals of your talkpage access. So, let me say it again: using adminhelp in conjunction with an unblock is improper: learn the lesson, and your future on Wikipedia will hopefully be brighter than it has been. Again, the best idea is to never be blocked again. Grow up a little, and learn when to learn. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can say it again, and as often as you wish. Template:Adminhelp not only does not say it, but clearly states that it is permissable. I remain at a loss as to why you're continuing to argue this with me, rather than at the appropriate talk page, or noticeboard. 2tuntony (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom89

I was about to type a response to you when you deleted the message. That's fine, if you think you have matters in hand. I'm curious though: How did you discern that I am a friend of Wisdom89? I'm aware of him certainly, and we have interacted in the past, but frankly I've been here for four years and I founded WikiProject Guitarists. It would be an rare editor of musician articles that I'd not interacted with at some point. There may be cadres of people running around here that stick up for each other, but I'm not one of them. Anyway, don't hesitate to ask if you have any other questions. It can be maddening trying to navigate the waters at times. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I didn't mean that as some sort of accusation of nepotism, but rather a possible conflict of interest, with your having had previous interaction, and conversations with that user involving Rush. Sorry if I was unclear about that. Thanks for the help! 2tuntony (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me replying to what you erased...

...but I come here as a fellow editor not an admin. I assure you that when I first came across the Wilcox article I did a lot more than simply redirect it. There simply are no sources available on the internet dealing with him, or I would have added them and moved on. BLPs without sources are in danger of being deleted without discussion, it happened before and it will happen again if they are not dealt with sooner rather than later. In a concerted effort we have reduced the backlog of these from 54,000 in January to 24,000 today; and the vast majority are still articles but now with sources verifying the information. So, I come here not to admonish or threaten you but to ask for your help. If you feel passionate about this take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons and help us reduce the backlog. Thank you for your time and happy editing. J04n(talk page) 10:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'd love to help with that, as well as other things. I just find it frustrating that different admins have very different standards, particulary when it comes to WP:BLP. 2tuntony (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammed. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Kww(talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Kindly fuck off. 2tuntony (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to review WP:NPA as well. Keep that up, and you will find yourself blocked again.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What a shock that would be!! 2tuntony (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who may happen upon this, the edits I made to that page were to remove original research, a policy which, like all others here, only applies to common users. Our beloved admins have found it necessary to keep the outer party in line. 2tuntony (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you don't like templates

Your note at the top of this page has taken your anti-collegial behaviour too far. As you prefer to delete positive help rather than pay attention, I have brought this to the attention of other administrators for action/comment. See WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)