User talk:Telefocus

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello! I will treat you with respect, civility, and kindness if you do the same.

Archives

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've wasted the time of a half a dozen people, and if you want to know, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANY REVIEWING ADMINISTRATOR MUST NOT BE User:Bkonrad , User:TheresNoTime , or User:Drmies AS IT MUST BE REVIWED BY AN ADMINISTRATOR NOT INVOLVED SO IT WILL NOT BE DECLINED BECAUSE OF A GRUDGE UNLIKE WHAT HAS HAPPENED

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I've been on Wikipedia for one or two months now and I have become quite familiar with the policies and guidelines. However, I cannot recall a reason in the Blocking policy that states that sysops may block if they feel it. In his note at the end of his block, as seen below, Drmies states that You've wasted the time of half a dozen people which I fail to understand as I was only disputing with one person (User:Bkonrad). It was not by my choice to have 5 other people become involved. And, to remain in good faith, when the dispute was apparently over, I sent User:Bkonrad Apologizing for getting off on the wrong foot so that we could remain in good faith. I realize that my understanding of Wikipedia may be limited, as I have not been on it as long as any of the people in this debate. However, what I still am bewildered about is how I have been banned. User:Drmies states that I am "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" Despite my mainspace edits, and after reading the wikilink, it does not appear that I have violated any policy of Wikipedia, especially to the extent to get an indefinite block for a first offense. I do, however, realize that (at the time I did not know it existed) I could have requested for arbitration and it is something I should have done instead of continuing the debate. But, within this time when so many people have come to my talk page for a debate, none of them requested an arbitrator, or at least been kind to me. Also, notice how the dispute took place on my talk page, I did not go out of my way to attack or argue with any of these editors, they came to me and refused to drop the argument, I probably should have filed for help due to a personal attack, as 6 people decided to team up and ridicule me. Regardless, please address (not ignore) the details I have put in this request. Hopefully this lets the reviewing editor know most of the details. Thank you. Also see here, as User:Drmies is literally asking for real-life information ignoring the fact I am under 16. Telefocus (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I had a feeling I'd come back to see you'd been blocked—I would have done it myself. You're a net negative to the project, the discussion here sums it up well. I'm also fairly sure there's multiple account use going on here, so I'd recommend you take the standard offer -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:43, 11 March 2022 (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.

To the next admin: see this also. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to address your unblock request (because frankly, you also wasted my time), but do you know why there's a bunch of blank space in the unblock template? I'm not seeing anything that could be causing all that blank space. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: I thought the request should be reviewed by an admin that did not have anything to do with the situation, nor the banning admin. So, I would like to request that this be reviwed by a sysop that was not involved with this, as a perceived grudge is no reason for leaving an indefinite block. (For reference, my school's IP block is not even indefinite, set to expire 2025, even though as soon as it is lifted there will be vandalism, regardless of any warnings, as it is a school.) Perhaps I should have explicitly requested this, as, again, going through all the policies, especially Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia as that is what it appears I have been banned for, yet I still fail to see why I was banned. And for the multiple account usage thing, what multiple accounts? I'm on a school IP, so yes, I'd believe there are probably other people with accounts on the IP (including my brother). As you can see here User:Drmies was trying to dig up dirt on me from the beginning, as I guess it's custom for Administrators to just get people they are in a dispute with blocked so they can "win" the argument. Also see here's edit summary for harrasment from User:Bkonrad. He also thought it appropriate to talk through edit summaries, so I did the same, following the leadership of an admin, and then told not to put my "sneers" in through edit summaries. Hyprocisy.

No, sorry I don't know what is causing all the blank space, maybe a template error? Telefocus (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind it's the Archives. Telefocus (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Let me see if I can fix that. I think I know what's causing the archives to be included, the lack of a section header. I'll just move this unblock request below the block notice. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Telefocus (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: But don't you have to be an administrator to address unblock requests? Telefocus (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not be able to accept or decline unblock requests, I can still attempt to provide feedback to a user to help them with their unblock request. However I'm not going to do that here because as I said, you wasted my time as well. I"m just being nice enough right now to address this technical error. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't waste your time though, you chose to be involved, I didn't even ask you at all. In fact, i'm a bit confused on why you got involved, usually I don't like to get into debates that I don't have anything to do with because they always leave everyone involved with a sour taste in their mouth at the end. But thank you for addressing the technical error. Telefocus (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved because you left an inappropriate warning on my talk page. I'm not going to argue with you about this again so please, let's not discuss this any further. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, just saying it was still your choice. Telefocus (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, your archive box is really insistent on cutting into the unblock request. I've added a clear tag underneath it which will prevent it from doing that, although I'm fairly sure it should automatically push the unblock request down instead of cutting into it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks.Telefocus (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Because you have been ranting and raving, especially in your edit summaries, I have revoked your talk page access. Please review the Guide to appealing blocks for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #56621

is closed. Should seek reconsideration of their block six months hence --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

didn't see this earlier, but it sums things up nicely. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Break-glass-in-case-of-emergency

Hello, Telefocus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Break-glass-in-case-of-emergency, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Henry Stickman Collection

Hello, Telefocus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Henry Stickman Collection, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Henry Stickman Collection

Hello, Telefocus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Henry Stickman Collection".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]