User talk:Top1Percent

Welcome!

Hello, Top1Percent, 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:

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!

Restoring Honor Rally

The section regarding the attendance has been subject to significant discussion. I suggest you join the talk. This section is also under mediation regarding presentation. You may be unaware of WP policies, but you are also close to violating WP:3RR. Arzel (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated WP:3RR. As I stated that section is under mediation. The reason that the talk is dated is because all parties are awaiting the mediators decision. If you revert again I will report you. Arzel (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you tell me to "join the talk" when it was dead? You could have linked me to this mediation page in the first place instead of warning and reverting me without explaining what was going on!

You didn't give me a chance to link the mediation page, you went and violated 3RR almost immediately, and then after my second warning you went and did it again. Arzel (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relax! And Top1Percent, if you want to contribute to this discussion, you are very welcome and join the mediation if this is possible. Let's delegate this to the mediator. I left a note on his talk page [1]. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in mediations, this is the first one I'm ever participating. But I would be surprised if a mediation would be a "closed" thing. This would contradict the philosophy of Wikipedia I think. At the end the mediator has to decide. He didn't respond to my note on his talk page yet, but he mentioned that he is very busy at the moment. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too late, considering we're already done with opening statements. You're welcome to observe the mediation though. BS24 (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment moved here from post on 82.135.29.209's Talk Page from Top1Percent):

Is the mediation still open for participants? Top1Percent (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to ask the mediator who is handling it, W. G. Finley, as only he can say for sure. You can do that by going to his Talk Page and posting him a note at this link here to let him know you're interested in participating. There is no requirement that anyone has to make an opening statement, so the only real issue is whether or not the mediator will let other interested parties join the group. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Restoring Honor rally. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block, but likely to return as a sock.[2] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hi Top1Percent. Since NYyankees51 is a notorious sock, I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51 to establish clarity. If the suspicion is wrong, then sorry for that. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Top1Percent. You have new messages at 82.135.29.209's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

This diff shows an unusual familiarity with Wiki protocols. Is this a clean start account? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, would you people go find something better to do? I'm sure you guys normally have a blast wiki-lawyering at Restoring Honor rally and driving off new editors, but most sane people find such behavior quite tedious. Top1Percent (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore honor

Hey, good to see that soomeone else thinks the Colbert response is valuable. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I'd actually prefer a better source than the "Crooks & Liars" blog. Could you please find one? Top1Percent (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately [3] only provides the latest episodes, this particular episode was available at [4], but seems to be not available anymore. But I think while the blog itself is no reliable source, the video on this blog definitely is authentic and a reliable source, it is just hosted by the blog, so I think this is absolutely fine. But I added information about which episode it was. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly astounding bullshit.

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).

Top1Percent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Seriously, I'm not MinusJason, nor am I NYyankees51, nor am I anyone else on Wikipedia. I don't know how many times I have to say this before people get it through their thick, Scooby-Doo-wannabe heads. Is it seriously beyond your grasp that two people might notice the same glaring issue with an article and join to address it? I just can't believe that some amateur CheckUser would fail to differentiate between a legitimate ISP and "advanced technical magic in play," then block a person on a what amounts to nothing more than an intellectually lazy hunch. For god's sake, how do I have edit conflicts with a sockpuppet?

Decline reason:

The level of similarity between your edits and those of other accounts rises above that of merely coincidental interest in the same topics. The similarity is so close as to preclude any conclusion except that there is one person behind both accounts. Jayron32 06:05, 19 November 2010 (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.

Indef block

I believe you got a bum deal and should not give up. The admin cited a preponderance of evidence without stating at all what that evidence was. The CU is not mentioned regarding you and Minusjason, so that is not it, otherwise it would have been mentioned. Admins can be a high handed bunch, and they most likely blocked you for your incivility. They will not admit to it, but dislike of your vocal objections hardly will make any of them feel obliged. I would appeal and ask for a detailing of what evidence was regarded as compelling. If it's the similarities in edits, then their argument is weak, very weak. It is reasonable to assume that two different editors would agree and make similar edits. Unfortunately, there is a star chamber quality, meaning a huge lack of transparency involved, to how these judgements are issued, and they will not feel an obligation to explain themselves, and no admin can demand a better rational for how the block was decided. If you appeal, you will need to deal with the fact finding process, and leave out how idiotic admins can be at times, however obvious this may seem. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]