Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calvin999 (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 6 July 2012 (→I should be unblocked now?: Lol). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Calvin999 is currently feeling discouraged about Misplaced Pages and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation. Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated. He will return when his wikistress has dissipated and his confidence in the wikicommunity has been restored.

This is Calvin999's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 5 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Calvin999}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk)

For whoever sees this

This is WP:OR, yet no one has noticed. Aaron • 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You may not edit by proxy. If you wish me to disable your access to this talkpage, keep it up. = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know I can't edit, I'm blocked, hence why I wrote it here. How is saying that someone has added original research to an article something which equates to me having my talk page disabled??? 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the ONLY reason you have access to this page is to request unblock. Asking someone else to make an edit, or alerting others to make the edit is editing by proxy, and will lead to this page being locked for the duration of the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you should have explained that to me first instead of simply saying that you will revoke my access to my talk page without explanation, as I didn't know. Aaron • 22:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing WP:OR from an article is more important than blocking someone's talk page. Misplaced Pages's policies/rules aside, it looks very awkward to come here and tell him that he can't write on his own talk page. Just saying. Till I Go Home 04:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Home is right. I think that if a blocked user uses their talk page to notice other users of original research on an article, is an exemplary case when we must ignore all rules. This actions can never be done in bad faith, and shows the commitment the user has with the project. I'm not trying to protect Calvin, as I speak in general, but I think this principle applies here. —Hahc21 04:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? No. Someone else had already fixed it without looking here. Let's not all kid ourselves: none of us is irreplaceable, and suggesting that because a small problem has existed that it won't eventually be fixed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I don't think it's fair to condone me for trying to help remove WP:OR. Also, it was reverted half an hour after you responded to me BWilikins, and over an hour after I first presented it here, so who's to say that someone didn't see this? Regardless, it's been reverted now. Aaron • 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when and who removed the original research. The intention is what i'm talking about. I'm pretty sure that such recommendation cannot qualify as "abuse of talk page" in any way. I've seen many blocks before and it is the first time i see the user is refused to edit it's own talk page for writing out OR from pages he/she has read within their block. Again, i'm not talking about Calvin but in general. I think you're overreacting here. I'm a bit suspicious some COI may be in here, so i'll do a research to see what I find. —Hahc21 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, is this what Misplaced Pages has turned into during my absence? Incredible! So editors will now get blocked for requesting others to remove original research? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at Calvin's block log, and saw that he has now been blocked from editing his own talk page. This is really sad and disgusting. I'm very shocked and disappointed right now. I find this to be abuse of administrative power. Till I Go Home 07:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation, and I see no abuse of administrative power. I strongly considered using blocks to deal with the situation when Calvin999 was preventing most of PhoenixJHudson's edits from being retained. Toddst1 and Bwilkins eventually reached the conclusion that blocks had become necessary to deal with the more general problem. While blocked, Calvin used his talk page to encourage specific edits on article pages. He isn't permitted to do that. His comments made it clear that he was not going to use his talk page to discuss his block terms, which is the only permitted use his talk page has while he is blocked. Since he isn't going to use it for its only legitimate purpose, Bwilkins took his editing rights away. I will caution you all that if Calvin999 is in contact with you through other channels, you are not permitted to perform edits at his suggestion.—Kww(talk) 07:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He threatened to block him on 26 June 2012, and did so on 28 June 2012. I find this suspicious considering Calvin hardly made any other edits after replying to B Wilkins. And I'm not the only one who thinks that blocking someone's talk page because they're trying to help the project is ridiculous. Till I Go Home 08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He only changed an existing block on June 28: Calvin was blocked on June 22, and that block is in effect until July 6. And no, blocked users aren't permitted to attempt to help the project. That's part of what being blocked is about.—Kww(talk) 10:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about blocking the talk page. Per WP:IAR, "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." Till I Go Home 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how is not doing that considered "abuse of administrative power" or "suspicious"? Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

? He notified on his talk page of WP:OR in which WP:IAR applies. And I saw your edit summary, It was not a personal attack. Saying "I find this to be ..." and "this is..." are different things. Till I Go Home 01:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a classic case of admin abuse - hurling unfounded, baseless accusations against an admin performing their actions by the book. Yes, a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i'm not able to find a guideline saying that "a blocked user can only use their talkpage to discuss the matter of the block or any related topic about it. A user who uses their talkpage for any other purpuse may be blocked from editing their talkpage either." Can anyone point me to it since I can't find it? Thanks. —Hahc21 01:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, I have a very specific question. At what point did Calvin999/Aaron do something that violated policy or threatened to cause harm to the encyclopedia after 20:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)? That was the time that Bwilkins said "You may not edit by proxy. If you wish me to disable your access to this talkpage, keep it up."

Also, in reference to the statement "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked", I'm trying to find the guidelines or policies that match up with that statement. I've looked at Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goals, and at Misplaced Pages:User_talk_page#User_talk_pages as well as WP:MEAT to see how this editor continued to behave in a way that way detrimental after the warning issued at 20:13, 26 June. If you have a particular diff or something, I would be happy to review it. -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Calvin999&diff=499738589&oldid=499738289 certainly didn't leave me feeling that Calvin999 understood that he shouldn't use his talk page to solicit proxy editing.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So are we blocking people for not understanding or for some action they take? -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, i've read all guidelines i've found and none of them covers the block from editing the talk page. This is a very unusual case. I'm still searching to find what supports Bwilkins actions. —Hahc21 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When an editor shows after a warning that he does not understand why his behaviour was disruptive, a block is sometimes appropriate. In a case like this, where the block is already in place and the only thing that is being added is a lock of the talk page, the threshold is extremely low.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, my question was more at Toddst1, who said "hurling unfounded, baseless accusations against an admin performing their actions by the book" Particularly, that by the book part was something that caught my attention. If we are going 'by the book', it would be good to see where our book says 'not understanding something' gets you a block. (Especially since blocks are supposed to be given to prevent, not punish.) Now, if it was not strictly 'by the book', it seems like the block rationale should have posted here after the block was made or amended. I have not seen that either. So, it is strictly the block summary alone that we have to go on, and it just says "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". Not sure when that specific use occured but I assume it was sometime between 20:13 on the 26th and 11:22 on the 28th. But in looking at the comments, I don't the offense. Also, I didn't see that other editors were in consensus agreement that Calvin999/Aaron's actions were reprehensible or detrimental. In fact, several seemed to think it was reasonable. Maybe not smart to argue with an admin, but reasonable nonetheless. -- Avanu (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, i just wanted to note. Toddst1 said: "baseless accusations against an admin", and i want to say: "baseless rationale to perform a needless block which seems not to be supported by any guideline and, additionally, made to prevent instead of punishing." I won't touch the "by the book" part because i think it's pretty obvious it wasn't by the book. Cheers! —Hahc21 21:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, perhaps the example here is a good guide User talk:AndyTheGrump Penyulap ☏ 06:24, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

It seems that BWilkins is on a vacation or something, since he is not answering my simple request made on June 28. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song)

Hey, Calvin999. I know you are blocked right now, but I just wanted to inform you that this article you put up for good article nomination has passed , since some of your peers helped address the issues. Rp0211 17:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll even add to your user page if you'd like. Nobody Ent 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To which page? Aaron • 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Calvin999 Nobody Ent 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's not considered an "instruction" or a "request" on my part. I've been there already last week, and look what happened! Aaron • 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It was nice of you to do that. Aaron • 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Hahc21 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Calvin,

I mentioned you here Penyulap ☏ 06:41, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Misplaced Pages which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Misplaced Pages. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access

Talk page access restored. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not that I'm not pleased, but why?! Lol. Aaron • 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Because he's never read this guideline :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you hadn't either, as no one agreed with the block of my talk page made by you, like. And this is what I mean why a less than personable stance, especially with the sarcastic use of ":-)". Aaron • 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, first I'm not sure why you would find it "non-personable" when that comment was directed at someone other than you, and second I'm not sure how you could ever conceive that smiley to be sarcastic in any way. I think you're looking for things that aren't there so you can justify something that doesn't exist. (Oh, and to claim "no-one" agreed is a big stretch...guidelines AND a few other editors did) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is with reading text on a screen Bwilkins, like reading a text on a phone or an email, is that you don't know how the person intends something to come across, as it is not spoken, and it is therefore open to interpretation to the intended recipient, and that's how I interpreted it. Aaron • 11:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "...because he..." clearly means it was not intended for you, doesn't it ... no matter how you read it? Again, you're digging for reasons here when I'm the one helping you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Aaron • 12:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Check your email. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not due to be unblocked until Friday night, but I'm submitting an unblock request now. I haven't been able to edit any article for 12 days now, and I think I've served enough block time. It has actually done me good and it was a much needed break away from editing and drama, but I want to be able to edit again now.

Decline reason:

The only real reason pffered here is "time served" which in no way adresses the reason you were blocked. I don't see anything any more compelling in the discussion below. You wanted an answer, here it is. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (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.

Not the worst unblock request I've seen but not the best, and I'm not optimistic you'll be successful. It's best to address the specific reason you were blocked and what steps you'll take in the future to avoid repeating. Although the full issue isn't exactly clear to me, from the statement Toddst1 made when blocking and you're prior warning, I'd suggest something like "I will discuss other editors' good faith edits I disagree with on the talk page before reverting them." This would allow you to revert vandalism, BLP violations and unsourced additions and the like, but differences like pop and dancehall and dancehall and pop you'd have to wait a bit on before reverting, if you can reach consensus on the change. Nobody Ent 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty much said it all in the couple of unblock requests already. The condition of my unblock, the 1RR for 6 months, is a reason in itself. It leaves me no choice but to discuss things. Aaron • 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Got your email, but I'm confused: if you want to say something in the email, why don't you just say it? And if you want to be unblocked, why not transclude the template? I'm willing to help where appropriate, but the blocking admin is Toddst1 and you might do well to email him. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The email I sent you is nothing to do with my block or Toddst1, and is something I'd like to remain private via email and not on my talk page please, that's why I emailed you, so don't discuss it here. Thanks. And I have nothing to email Todsst1 with or for, I find his administrative responsibility questionable, see here and here. (P.S. I didn't know I had to transclude the template?).Aaron • 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a request for unblock active, and then go and say what you have just said above? Really? Note, I also concur with the Ent that the unblock does not quite cover the issues correctly - see WP:GAB and feel free to fix the request. Note the fix I made to the unblock template for you to make it actually appear correctly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "go and say what you have just said above?". And yeah I saw, all I did was copy and paste the unblock template as it was presented (now in my archive), so how was I supposed to know that it apparently needed fixing? Aaron • 19:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What do I mean? You trash the blocking admin - which is usually an automatic decline. You know the template needed fixing because the block notice gave instructions here in your archives that certainly did not include "tlx". Are you going to fix your unblock request as suggested, or is it easier to just decline it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "trashing" by any means. I find it really unacceptable that several people, including you, have adopted less than personable stances with me, but when I merely state a fact (which is no different to that extremely large thread about his capabilities on the ANI which I've obviously had no involvement with), I'm "trashing", a term which I have never even heard of before. Aaron • 21:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? "Less than personable"?? Remember that I am the one who actually made your unblock request active. I am the one who is trying to help you become unblocked early by fixing your request, and giving you advice how to amend it to be successful. If that's your definition of "less than personable", I'd hate to see your criteria for "personable" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@BWilkins: You're here arguing with him. But it also seems like you're trying to be honest with him. Let's see if there are some better ways to say this stuff, and each one of you can be more helpful to the other that way? Good luck. -- Avanu (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you misread my comment above. It was indented under BWilkins name, but I've clarified that now. And as for that other thing I said (you commented via email), it is true, and I think BWilkins is trying to offer advice, however gruffly, as are some of these others. I think you got a raw deal on part of this, but sadly this is a part of Misplaced Pages that many active editors end up running into eventually. Good luck, and I'll try and be more clear. -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To be super clear, that link he posted to Misplaced Pages:AAB is just one more thing to be read. Misplaced Pages is bound down with so many rules and guidelines and policies and pillars, and yet, we are WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Sure we aren't.

The way Misplaced Pages operates in a technical fashion is *very* 1998. You shouldn't have to go click one more link to know how to appeal a block. The information should be right up front and the process should help you, not be so text-driven.

The way our processes work are very 1948 and very hippie/ochlocratic/democractic/demagogue-ish/fascist. Overly bureaucratic and overly consensus driven. Mob rule, but nice mobs usually. Like I said to Jimbo, it is a bit like trying to herd cats.

So, what I'm trying to say is that there was probably a hint of him being whatever, and my reply was obliquely telling him, don't you think that stuff is complicated enough? Just go help. -- Avanu (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not arguing, I'm trying to respond and be honest. If replying is termed as arguing... And if I am "arguing" with him, then he is to me also. It's not a one way thing. Enough now. Aaron • 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tbh Avanu, that comment could have been easily interpreted as it being about me reading it myself, or about BWilkin's reading it himself. I'm pretty sure my last unblock request did not "suck". Aaron • 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with text is that nobody *feels* what you say without a lot of effort. In real life, you can smile, shake hands, and simply say "I messed up" and generally people move on. Here we take 100 paragraphs of text and a bunch of misunderstandings to get only a 1/4 of what that real-life interaction can do. The word "suck" was a succinct way of saying that your request above doesn't hit the mark. I personally think you've gone through enough, that you *get it*, but Edit Warring is one of those things that people either understand or they don't. The idea that we're here to fix problems and improve is at odds with the idea that we're supposed to voluntarily stop doing that and just chat on the Talk page until everyone is convinced. It is a very slow, deliberative, and awful process, but it is how Misplaced Pages works. Britannica probably never worked like that. They just hired smart experts or paid a contributor and moved on. In Misplaced Pages, you could be an expert, but that doesn't carry any weight. Consensus does. But it is what it is. And its the rule. If you understand how to avoid edit warring, then you have no reason to continue being blocked. If you don't understand it, then you need to keep being blocked. That's that point. -- Avanu (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that my request hasn't been answered as I am unblocked tomorrow night. I'd rather someone just be honest and say that I won't be unblocked because I've only got a day and a half to wait, but that wasn't the case 2 days ago, instead of just leaving it. Aaron • 12:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's unanswered because it's not WP:GAB-compliant, and because a few people are trying to help you fix it. You're not fixing it, so you're right, it might just be easier to decline it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Calvin, I agree with you. The same thing happened with me. (I'm not sure if you were watching my situation from afar or not). My unblock request was not reviewed until hours after my block was even expired. Quite bad form if you ask me. I think most administrations think that being blocked for a few more days (a day, or even hours) is no big deal. But to us, who are both very active in the community, it is. Statυs (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Are you feeling better? This whole conflict is like almost over but not yet. I just wanted to know how's going on and talk to you a little :) —Hahc21 15:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your concern, but I don't think I can talk for talking sakes while I'm blocked. Administrator's words, not mine. Aaron • 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've made a lot of work debunking such rationales, and the involved admins reached the same conclusion as I. So, you won't have your TP access blocked again until policy says that, and it don't (at least till u don't make what the policy does say). Just to note. Cheers! —Hahc21 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What policy? Aaron • 21:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ups. Misplaced Pages: Blocking policy. It doesnt support your talk page block. Actually, Toddst1 and I have been asking for it to be more specifically written to avoid TP bloks not covered by that policy. —Hahc21 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. Aaron • 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Aaron, your block is set to expire in a few short hours. I personally believe that once that happens, we're about to see a good view of your level of maturity overall, based wholly upon how you proceed. Indeed, the fact that you have a "semi-retired" tag at the top of the page, yet requested unblock shows either confusion, or some WP:DIVA tendencies - you'll get to show us either way. Of course, based on the e-mails you sent me (which I still have) concern me about your maturity level, and lean towards the diva-model.

What will, of course, be extremely concerning, will be if you make even a single edit that is similar to what led to this block in the first place - WP:OWN is seriously unloved on this project. Your next block - which I hopefully hope will never happen - will be at least a month.

You now have many admins, and your friends both watching, and at the same time those admins and friends want to see you succeed. My recommendation: go out and edit well, and prove the doubters wrong. Don't go the drama route. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I am WP:OWN, but if you block me for copy-editing articles for GAN then I will not be impressed. It's no different to what I've been doing for over a year or what any other editor does. After all, as we are all here to improve the project, I would like to think that revamping an article for GAN would be encouraged. Aaron • 11:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheet music

Hello. After your block expires, can you please help me with a sheet music for the key it's in? :) Till I Go Home 11:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try my best :) lol Aaron • 11:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I should be unblocked now?

It's 19:44, and my block log says I should have been unblocked at 19:32. Aaron • 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Current GMT is 18:59 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in England and it's 20:02 lol. Aaron • 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedians feeling discouraged