User talk:Colleenthegreat

Because it is ridiculous.pointlessforest 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do?

I dont know what to do because someone keep vandalising on me because he is removing my contribute. What do I do? Please help me Colleenthegreat 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts? Ewlyahoocom 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find some helpful information in the following links:

Welcome!

Hello, Colleenthegreat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Ewlyahoocom 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, while you were editing the page, you were placing original research into the article. Second, while your edits were good, I don't appreciate you placing information which is proven to be false into an article that I am currently working on. Please read the above message in order to see how Wikipedia works. Miranda 02:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Know me?

I highly doubt you know me. What even brought you too me in the first place?? Darkage7 06:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cześć!

cześć, przepraszam za to, że się na Ciebie wczoraj zezłościłam. Mam nadzieję, że dobrze Ci idzie na Wikipedii. Miranda 07:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured article" tags

Please stop adding these to articles that haven't been officially designated "featured." If you'd like more information about featured articles, please read over this page Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cedar Run is NOT the largest waterway in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (the West Branch Susquehanna River is, and Pine Creek is the largest creek). Please stop or risk being blocked, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cedar Run, Pennsylvania. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Making an article on Cedar Run is fine, but claiming it has 1,493 inhabitants is just nonsense. The village is in Brown Township which has a total only 111 people as of 2000. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and hope I did not come across as too gruff above. Here is the USGS GNIS lisiting of populated places in US with the name "Cedar Run" (even as an alternate name) [1] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! —slakr^\ talk / 06:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this one. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from a Kosovar!

Thanks for the message. If you mean my little addition to the Flag of Kosovo is unconstructive but lauded, then I should let you know that these are things you hear a lot, but you don't seem them on the news. I think some articles need to include something that has become popular, even such a useless anecdote.--Getoar (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Your Smile

Hi, thank you for smiling at me! Could you tell me what in particular it was I did that made you smile? Wow, I feel so special! How kind of you! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I don't know. I just see that you are a constructive editor to Wikipedia! :D You see, I've been doing vandal warnings tonight and I decided to turn it around and applaud real contributers. So I'm going through the recent changes looking for good edits and thanking them with a changed vandal warning template instead of warning vandals with one :) It was getting depressing. So thanks! Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, well I'm honored to be smiled at! I smile at you for making the community a better place. ;) — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why you smiled at me, too? If so, thank you!Johnmc (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Thanks for the smile and sorry for misinterpreting. Keep up the good work. Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Uw-vandalism4im Template

Please be more judicious when handing out Uw-vandalism4im warnings which should only be issued for the most egregious acts of vandalism. Most admins will not block users if a report is made to AIV and they see this warning issued for "run of the mill" vandalism. For example, I have no idea why this [2] was issued. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This and this as well. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense edits

You have been warned before not to make nonsense edits. You continue to do so on the Talk:Jesus page, which is dedicated to discussion for improving the encyclopedia article - not silly attempts to proselytize others. Please stop. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duut, Khovd

"...and is very sparsely populated dispite having several large but obscure communities". Your added this post with no references and it looks original research. W Wiki nie wskazane dodawanie opinii własnych. Pozdrawiam. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked

You have been warned repeatedly about nonsense edits. This is vandalism. I am blocking you for one month. Let's see if that is enough time for you to grow up. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It should be noted that English is not my first language, so in the edit where I changed "heroine" to "heroin," I thought I was reverting vandalism and correcting the spelling, which I know was wrong and that I should be more careful if I'm not completely sure about a word. I have some history of helping anti-vandal efforts, and this is the only edit I've made that I would think to be vandalism. My other recent edits have been reverted by the blocking admin (User:Slrubenstein), although I'm not sure why all of these can be considered vandalism. Slrubenstein had misunderstood my intentions when I posted a proposal on Talk:Jesus, and the block occured after I asked where I could best accomplish my request, which should have shown that I was not necessarily intending to troll, as Slrubenstein originally accused. I am a little bit familiar of the process of issuing user warnings, and I feel I was not sufficiently warned that my actions were nearing the point of being blocked. Not to mention being blocked for a month. I feel that is a little bit extreme. I can source at least some of my recent edits that Slrubenstein reverted, and I think I should be given a second chance, and, if possible, sufficiently warned of an impending block in the future. Additionally, I feel I should also apologize after reading some of Slrubenstien's comments with Chensiyuan. If it means anything, I am sorry, and I realize a lot of people seem to be misinterpreting me. I am learning english better every day, and I will always try to improve my contributions.

Decline reason:

Declined for now, pending a response to the comments below. Mango juice^talk 15:05, 27 February 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have answered the comments, like Mangojuice asked, and have readded this template as suggested.

Decline reason:

You're answers below are defensive and evasive and show no evidence that you plan to stop your disruptive edits in the future. Since I see no evidence of contrition nor any desire to cease the problematic edits, I am declining this unblock request. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to sound defensive. However, Slrubenstein was wrong in many of his assumptions against me, and if it is self-condemning to argue this rationally and calmly, then this was a predetermined outcome and I was not given merit. If you read carefully my comments, and do your research, you will discover that my edits were only slightly "disruptive", but was never warned of an impending extended block. Instead, Slrubenstein decided to assume bad faith when I was, in fact, only ignorant of policy. In my comments, I apologized and expressed that I do not intend to continue because I do now understand policy completely — I do so again now. I do not know why I was told my request was pending if I was damned no matter what and would not be given benefit of WP:AGF by other administrators. Colleenthegreat (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2008 (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.

This block may be a bit much. However, your behavior on Talk:Jesus has been inappropriate, and is really the root cause of the block. Obviously Wikipedia is not going to accept things in the Bible as fact. Many people have tried to explain this point to you but you seem to be unwilling to listen or unable to understand. This is what you need to address before any unblock could be considered. Mango juice^talk 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - the comments on the talk:Jesus page are only 1/3 of the root cause for the block.

This user is not a newbie (account created eleven months ago) and should already know and understand our core policies. The proposed edit to the Jesus article was in flagrant violation of our policies and the problem is NOT English as a second language, it is disruptive editing to make a point, both violations of behavior guidelines. Let me also clarify: Andrew c explained to this user that s/he needs to read our core content policies and not to propose edits that are entirely contrary to our policies, and this user continued to argue for the proposed edits. It is this disregard (1) for our policies and (2) for the good-faith and well-intentioned advice/instructions of an experienced

virtually all other edits this editor has made fall into two categories:

I may have created an account 11 months ago, but did not edit for a large part of that. Also, I have never done anything wrong after I was told that it was wrong. Also, I do realize why my proposal was not accepted on Talk:Jesus, however I was mad about it. However, I did ask if there were other Wikipedias in which to express my views. If my frustration showed a little bit, I think it is understandable, but it was nothing more. However, that does not mean I intended to continue discussing it; on the contrary, I fully understand why my proposal was not accepted and why it was not in favor with policy. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

creating talk pages for anonymous IP addresses in order to place vandalism warnings. These are pointless warnings that serve only to create new user pages when there is no new user, just the IP address of someone who was playing around. This is not the way to handle random vandalism. The user suggests s/he has "some history of helping anti-vandal efforts" but this history is almost entirely a history of inappropriate actions; above Slakr gave a very gentle, do not bite the newbie mild critique of the inappropriate way s/he was "helping" with vandalism.

Respectfully, you are wrong. If I created talk pages, it was because the user or IP had vandalized. I wasn't creating pages for the sake of creating pages. I also disagree with "inappropriate action": I am saddened because it appears proper research wasn't done into my vandal-fighting history, and it seems it was used as a reason for this block. The vast majority of my warnings were justified due to vandalism, with only a couple where I had accidentally warned the wrong user (I caught one of those, and reverted my warning and apologized immediately). Secondly, I had been using the "The is your only warning" template due to my desire to express the severity of what I feel vandalism is. I was then advised against using the "only warning" template and have not done so since. I am saddened that this would be used as a reason for blocking me, as I simply did not have knowledge that the "only warning" template was not to be used. I was not told before I was told! I have personally rechecked my edits and compared it to the edit histories of the vandals I have warned, and in all but a couple of cases, the user indeed vandalized, based on my understanding of our definition of vandalism. Slakr was wrong, I did not make a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Therefore, I was confused by this and did not understand what he said or why he said it. He might have been talking about me using the "Only warning" template, now that I think about it and now that I know this is wrong. Before, I did not understand. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a host of silly edits to articles virtually all of which were immediately reverted. These edits involve adding trivial or nonsensical information without any source. They just force a serious editor to revert and waste time. Above this user says s/he was not given sufficient warning. But just look at this talk page, and look at all the warnings for nonsense edits!! This user has been warned, plenty. S/he just won't stop. I am amking a final attempt to address this user in good-faith by not banning him/her permanently, as I have some suspicion s/he is just trying to game the system (if English is not your primary language, you just do not go around "correcting" English spelling-mistakes, certainly not without a dictionary ... I do not buy this implausible excuse). But the 1 month block is my attempt to deal fairly and reasonably and in good faith with a potentially useful editor.

I have traveled around the world for many years and lived in Austrailia, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. I have not editing anything that I do not know to be true. Like I said, I am eager to provide sources for some of the edits that were reverted, and see if I can find websites for as many as I can. However, I've done some edits to Japanese towns but do not know japanese so I doubt I will be able to translate. From policy, I thought it was good to be bold and add something when something is true but cannot immediately find a source for. I read somewhere that having it in there gives other people a chance to find a source for it. ABout my language, I am fairly good at English now, but I do many many mistakes. Some of this is cultural mistakes. Many times, I have a dictionary and sometime I use an online translator. Sometimes my husband helps me, like he is right now. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it - virtually all edits this editor has made at Wikipedia. This person is just not ready to help write an encyclopedia. I suggest that s/he use the next month constructively, by studying our core policies and looking at featured articles to see how our core policies are actually expressed, and by researching topics s/he really cares about - serious research, reading reliable sources of notable views, so that when s/he returns s/he can contribute to articles without being reverted every time. A month is not too long to wait, especially for someone who clearly has a lot to learn. In the meantime, unblocking just means this editor can go back to using Wikipedia as a personal playground for disruptive edits. No, the block should stay. Colleanthegreat, if you genuinely want to help write an encyclopedia, spend the four weeks reading and rereading our core policies, just read and learn how people work on articles, and research topics you really care about, research them properly, so when you come back you can edit and your edits will actually help the project rather than hinder it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this block is unjustified punishment. I use Wikipedia to help with my English and it would be very bad to be a month without it. Still, it is the principle. This was not justified. A week, possibly. But I was also upset at not having been told that I was going to be blocked. Without being told that I could be blocked, a month is too much. I had no idea that I was being so "disruptive", I always try to change when people tell me I am wrong. Also, I have read policy, but mostly in the last couple of days. I don't need four more weeks. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to answer questions about policy if you do not believe that I have read over it all. Colleenthegreat (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given you willful disregard of the nine warnings given you by almost as many other editors to stop making nonsensical edits and violating NOR starting 19 October - you were warned 9 times over a five month period and up to the day I blocked you you continued making dozens of nonsense NOR edits at a time to as many articles, I am utterly unpersuaded by your plea to be unblocked. Those warnings didn't work to change your behavior; if you are unblocked today the block just amounts to another warning. It is time you really took seriously your probmlem and our being tired of letting you play games here. You can show evidence of taking this seriously by accepting the block and really thinking about what you did - I don't just mean all the silly, pointless, NOR or POV edits, I mean why you consistently disregarded warnings and advice to comply with our policies over the past five months. If you want to keep blaming Enlgish being your second language (if indeed it really is; everything you have written sounds like it was written by a native English speaker, and we have plenty of editors who speak English as a second language who do not change heroine to heroin ... and what - you deleted a link made by an editor without looking to see where the link went to, and you replaced it with a new link and you didn't even bother to see what you were linking to? That shows a massive lack of good faith in other editors, and I really am skeptical of your excuses about being a non-native English speaker ... you need to start taking Wikipedia's policies and its editors seriously, and given your repeated disrespect over the past 5 months I think a one month block is generous) ... if English really is your second language, spend the month working on your English and then return to Wikipedia a better editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not warned 9 times; I don't know where you are getting that number. Also, you are counting the warnings seperately as if I had been warned, then repeated the edit, then warned again. In fact, I had made a stirng of edits, or made a series of edits over the same topic, and was warned seperately of each edit after the fact. I also contacted the editors who warned me for clarification, and reached agreements, or looked into their warning and did not repeat what they warned me for. I am truly dismayed by the lack of research being done into me; it seems that I am being assumed to be a bad-faith editor, unjustly. You say: " and what - you deleted a link made by an editor without looking to see where the link went to, and you replaced it with a new link and you didn't even bother to see what you were linking to? That shows a massive lack of good faith in other editors" - jumping to a seemingly unrealted conclusion (that I assume bad faith) makes your comment itself a violation of WP:AGF, as I understand it. I have conceeded that this particular edit is vandalism caused by my lack of understanding about English and apologized. I did not click the link, correct; that was bad judgment that was not at any time repeated, nothing more. At no other time have I vandalized, so I would like to put that edit behind me as I have apologized and explained myself several times now. Jayron32 says I have showed no desire to cease my edits; I have directly apologized, expressed that I have read policy fully, explained my train of thought on each of your criticisms of my editing, promised to improve my editing, and promised to provided sources as demanded by WP:V and WP:RS. If this is not enough, I will say it in more explicit terms: I am very sorry. I fully and completely understand why my edits were objected to; I intent completely to stop; I understand policy completely and am willing to prove it. Once again, I am very disheartened by how this is being handled. I feel I have been judged before I speak. My unblock request was looked at with suspicion despite my good faith efforts to comply with policy and discuss rationally the situation, as well as express my apologies and understanding. Instead, I have been treated wrongfully and not given proper attention or research. All of my editing was simply assumed to be made in bad faith; I was not given any leeway or room for doubt. I am very dissapointed by Wikipedia's handiling of this situation; I have not been granted equality in these discussions and WP:AGF is not being used here at all. Slrubenstein, I diserve to be treated with as much respect as anyone else; the fact that you did not advise me that I was going to be blocked, but instead assumed bad faith and blocked me for a month only 10 minutes after another editor advised you not to unless "paths cross again", at which time I had not edited for several hours. You should have specified that my edits violated WP:V and WP:RS because I was not providing sources. At that time, I had already been noted of my unknowingly wrongful use of user warnings, and had stopped. In your very first dealing with me in your warning about my proposal to Talk:Jesus, you immediately assumed bad faith towards me, calling my comments "silly attempts to proselytize others." First, while I did not know what this word means, but it is clear that you never gave me the benefit of the doubt. My proposal was innapropriate, I now know this; but this was no reason to block me. In my other editing, you have assumed bad faith at every turn, probably because you went into your research with a preconcieved notion that my core intent on Wikipedia was to "proselytize others". This is a great tragedy, and I am saddened. I wish only to improve Wikipedia. Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So eloquent. Are you sure English is not your native reason? Is that still your excuse for your vandalism? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry for offending you, as it seems that I have. I appreciate your efforts to rid Wikipedia of trolls and vandals, but wouldn't it seem reasonable that a final warning template would have exposed for sure if I was a troll or vandal? If I was a troll, I would have ignored a final warning template advising of a block. Therefore, the block would have been warranted at that time. Colleenthegreat (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone, Slrubenstein. If the response remains attacking everyone else for not "understanding" the vandalism, things won't change. Again, Colleen, a change in tone from this will do wonders for you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I've said all I wanted to say as far as explaining myself, so I wont anymore. All that's left is to aknwoledge that my edits did usually violate our policies (mainly WP:V) and I understand fully that now. However, not to seem defensive, and I'm sure you didn't mean to use this word Ricky, but my edits weren't vandalism. Still, looking back now that I do understand policy further, extended additions without sources are definently mildly disruptive. And again, I'm really sorry. Colleenthegreat (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Ricky, this is unrelated to the issue of being unblocked, but if it was not a mistake to call my edits vandalism, could you let me know which edits were vandalism so that I may not repeat these again? I currently know of one edit that I have done that could be considered vandalism, however unintentional it may have been (the one where I changed "heroine" to "heroin".) Thanks! Colleenthegreat (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point to silliness like "known for its hot sulfur springs, and an elevated level of criminal activity associated with the springs", and "replacing with Population 14". Given the large number of edits, it's too much of a headache determining which are real and which are nonsense. Frankly, there's too much "I was just kidding around" vandals that it's not worth the energy to play games all day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I don't have references to support those particular edits, so I wouldn't add them again. I do, however, have references for some of my recent additions, and am looking for more. Would you please respond to my questions at the bottom of this page? Thanks. Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen, I am saying this to be constructive. The issue is not just adding citations for facts. The issue is also, distinguishing between trivial and non-trivial facts. There is no rule or straightforward criterion you or any of us can use: it requires good judgement. When you are unblocked and start editing again, I urge you to cultivate good judgement in distinguishing between trivial random bits of information and the kind of material that makes an encyclopedia article better. This is one reason I suggested you study featured articles, to get a better sense of what kinds of information belong in a good encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, slrubenstein. That's very helpful. I have been looking at WP:Notability and have realized some of my additions didn't meet notablity, but some did if I can find references. I'd still like to be unblocked before a month and I plan to request it again as soon as Ricky responds to my questions below. Colleenthegreat (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I read your comment about my language skills on Ricky's talk page. I just want you to know that I don't mean to use the fact that english isn't my first language as an excuse for everything. However, there are occasionally some words that I am not sure about, like heroine/heroin. Also, I always have a dictionary near me and sometimes use an online translator, or my husband helps me. I'm glad to see that it doesn't seem like I am bad at english, that's flattering :) I'm really not that bad; I would say that I am moderate to good at speaking it. It's only that I'm much better at writing it than speaking because I can look over it many times. Thanks for the compliment, I am always trying to improve my English! Colleenthegreat (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found my last point constructive. I have suggested to Ricky that he mentor you on these points. If he is willing to mentor you, I have no objection to his (or her?) unblocking you. I do think it would be valuable for you tot have a more experienced editor to consult with. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Notice: I have renewed my IP address and created another account from which to edit and bypass my block. The block was unjustified and I was not given benefit of WP:AGF, so I will disregard it and continue my contributions to Wikipedia from my new account. Thanks to all who have supported me and I hope I am treated fairly with respect and neutrality in my continued efforts on Wikipedia as I employ my better understanding of our policy. Further refuting on my block can be found under the page history. Colleenthegreat (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've reblocked you so that any IP addresses you are using are also blocked (I made it a month again, so you got an extra two days, deservedly for this stuff). Per our blocking policy, evading a block can lead to further blocks and an extension of the original block. Since you can't seem to use this page properly, I've lock it down for one day. Take that day off at least and if you give a good {{unblock}} explanation, someone may unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that if you cannot wait the day, you can also email [email protected] and someone on that list may unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another discussion at WP:ANI about your edits. I asked you to take the day off and wait until the protection is removed on this page. I really, really wish you had done that. I would suggest simply waiting until the protection is removed, and asking again. I would highly suggest a change in tone; you can see from the noticeboard discussion that there is some sympathy for you about the block, but your responses are not helping. Also, please do not remove the previous unblock requests. Again, if you simply cannot wait, email the unblock list I gave you, but I don't think that would look favorable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for posting that comment. To clarify, it wasn't meant as an unblock request, but an explanation for why I said what I did. To answer your suggestion of putting a new unblock request, I am weary about doing so, as I have sadly been assumed to be a troll by at least one administrator, despite my attempts to rationalize things, and it hasn't gone well in two unblock requests already. Therefore, I would like to ask your advice about how to word my next unblock request. Should I simply apologize, or should I speak of my other concerns about the validity of the block in the first place? For example, about how I did not recieve a final warning template? In my two unblock requests, I have never intended to sound defensive or have a negative tone, so I'm sorry that it appeared as so. My intentions were to calmly defend myself, point out that 1 month without a warning may have been too harsh, and also apologize for violating WP:V with many of my edits. How should I proceed differently from here? Colleenthegreat (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I have posted 2 unblock requests already, but have been told by User:Ricky81682 to try again. There is a lot of discussion on this page about the situation, but the main reason I am asking for an unblock (in addition to the reasons I mentioned in my other unblock requests) is that I am ready to contribute in %100 accordance with policy. The block was an understandable overreaction to my edit history, of which many of my edits have violated WP:V and were unsourced (they've been called "silly"). I understand this fully now; nevertheless, I was not given a final warning (or any warning that I could be blocked), so one month was probably premature. Still, I understand why User:Slrubenstein (the original blocker) jumped to the good-faith conclusion that I was a troll. I've had a long and difficult process of getting to understanding policy (I've been advised of many things I have done wrong, and always tried to learn from them). Now, I am hoping that I will no longer be mistaken for a bad-faith editor, as I have read extensively of our policies and guidelines and feel that I am ready to begin editing with a much improved understanding of how to make this encyclopedia better. Thanks to the admin who looks into this. Colleenthegreat (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Ok, I've unblocked you. It's been almost a week, which is really long enough, especially with the above pledge to follow policy. Mango juice^talk 07:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some advice

Hi COlleen. You asked Mangojuice, "Should I create a new account and start over?" You didn't ask for my advice but I will give it:I think this is a bad idea. Many people here are very suspicious about the possibility of sock-puppetry as a way fo deceiving people (read the policies on sock-puppets) and if you create a new account, you risk giving people the idea you have something to hide, a bad idea.Second, you should not feel you have anything to hide. We all make mistakes. If you make lots of silly edits that are trivial and possibly OR, yes, people ought to know that you have done this in the past. BUT, if you do not do this, if you are careful to learn from your mistakes and not to do them in the future, well, believe me people will forget all about your past mistakes. Just focus on learning how to be a good, constructive editor, seek advice when you are unsure about compliance with policies, and listen to other people, and you will not have to worry about your past record. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]