User talk:CordialGreenery

Welcome!

Hello, CordialGreenery, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Delme Bryn-Jones. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rekonedth (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

Hey just stopping by to say be careful, try and focus on the content for the articles and how sources support them. It is nothing but trouble when focusing on users per WP:PERSONAL. Also watch that WP:3RR bright line.

That said I think there is a case to be made for changing it to far-left and expanding the body for the militant stuff and violence they do. Lets see what we can come up with on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See you on the talk page. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah welcome to American Politics, it is a crazy place on Wikipedia. Articles are slow to move and users are fast to noticeboards. It takes some getting used to and can be frustrating at times. If you ever have any questions just let me know, I'm happy to help. PackMecEng (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Bradv (Result: ). Thank you. Bradv🍁 05:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just went back to self-revert, saw that you did it for me. Let's work this out on the talk pageCordialGreenery (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that if you're blocked for edit warring you won't actually be able to discuss this on the talk page, right? Bradv🍁 05:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you want? CordialGreenery (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for editors to use talk pages to discuss things, and not to edit war. You may have a point to your edits, but there's not much point in discussing them if you're just going to keep changing the article back to your preferred version. If you had taken the BRD approach instead, you would be able to participate in the discussion. Also, please don't blank templates without reading them - they contain valuable information and advice. Bradv🍁 05:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you want, than participate on the talk page that I created for discussing this. Instead of templating me and pretending I didn't read it before blanking it. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you did read the notices? Then why did you continue to edit war? And why are you now removing the non-template message I left you instead as "not important"? This is troublesome behaviour. Bradv🍁 05:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I'd like to continue the discussion over at the BAMN talk page. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 recently 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.

As the notice says, this is just a notice to let you know that extra editing restrictions are in force for post-1932 American politics and related people. I do note, however, that you have made at least four reverts today at BAMN, breaking even the normal 3RR rule. Go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BAMN

What part of 3RR is unclear to you? Please self-revert or you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? Get a handle on yourself. CordialGreenery (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that expression. Does it have something to do with the more-than-three times you have made reversions at that article? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be able to read. Perhaps apply that ability to the talk page of the article in question and realize there was a discussion about this before coming unhinged on an editors talk page. CordialGreenery (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussions are never an excuse for 3RR violations, and you would know that if you knew how to read. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page resolutions reached after discussion and consensus, resulting in modified edits are absolutely grounds for editing. The edit was not a revert, it was a new edit that was agreed upon. I've also warned you on your talk page about your uncivil behavior. Knock it off. CordialGreenery (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:BAMN

When you grow up, "Shabby" is willing to discuss. Until then, Dumbo, your unconstructive changes will continue to be reverted. For the same reasons as before. Which you seem to be too proud or too stupid to understand. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of out-of-line that you have reached is alarming. You have been warned so many timed for this behavior. I'm leaving this up to demonstrate the level of aggression you have reached. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting you for a 3RR violation is not harassment

Claiming that editors have harassed you when you clearly violated 3RR shows a lack of good faith and is a personal attack. It makes you look bad. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being harassed by another editor is harassment. CordialGreenery (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have removed the quote per WP:POLEMIC. If you restore it, you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely common for editors to quote other editors on their user page. CordialGreenery (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just what you are doing, and you know it. You need to drop this matter and improve your attitude. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing, then? Because I'm literally just putting an aggressive quote on my page. Why are you trying so hard to erase something that another editor directed at me? This is actually completely insane. CordialGreenery (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeals

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).

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

Request reason:

absolutely ridiculous block. Did not make any disruptive edit at all. CordialGreenery (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block changed to indefinite because you're a sock puppet of User:OnceASpy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm now being accused of being a sock. I simply quoted an aggressive comment by another editor and I'm being shut down. CordialGreenery (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This sort of edit summary is just going to get your ability to edit your talk page taken away. ST47 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have broken no rules. CordialGreenery (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ST47 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (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.

I have seen editors with with a "hall of shame" list on their user pages of editors they've gotten banned. I've seen multiple editors with a collection of mean quotes they've received, linking to the diff. I've even seen admins doing the same thing. Why am I being blocked for literally quoting someone aggressively insulting me? CordialGreenery (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A month-long block for quoting something another editor left on my talk page is extremely unfair and obviously undue. CordialGreenery (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't gone all racist by adding "Shabby" to that quote you'd still be here. Go through your talk page history for the explanation. This racist streak, where you refer to African-American people by using infantilizing terminology, is continued off-wiki as well, so I guess it's not accident. Please tell Miacek I said hi. And tell Wereallpatriots, whoever that is, that I didn't have to send off any emails for anything--perhaps he'll take off his tinfoil hat if you talk to him.
NinjaRobotPirate, User:ST47, User:331dot, I didn't know the user got hisself blocked again and then CU-blocked: I came here to address this off-wiki harassment, but I guess that's all hypothetical now. GorillaWarfare, Opabinia regalis, I don't know if ArbCom still has an interest in off-wiki stuff. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to send it along. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think @PackMecEng might get a kick out of this CordialGreenery (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock. I am being shut down because I dared to point out the aggressiveness of another editor CordialGreenery (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeals

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being accused of something that I have not done. I'm being framed for something that I am not. Simply for quoting an editor who posted on my talk page CordialGreenery (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is not the only reason you are blocked. You are blocked because you have repeatedly been grossly incivil in your edit summaries, and because a CheckUser has used technical evidence to determine that you are already indef blocked under a different account. Since you have repeatedly posted "I'm not listening" unblock requests, I am revoking talk page access. ST47 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2019 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25439 was submitted on Jun 02, 2019 11:42:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25440 was submitted on Jun 02, 2019 12:27:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25442 was submitted on Jun 02, 2019 15:37:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block subsumed by the Arbitration Committee

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 07:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]