User talk:VersoArts

Welcome!

Hello, VersoArts! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Lor^Chat 08:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources: Conflict in the Niger Delta; Ebira people; State Security Service (Nigeria); Ken Saro-Wiwa; History of Nigeria; Owoye Andrew Azazi
Cleanup: Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Kayode Fayemi
Expand: Shell Nigeria; Disappeared (Northern Ireland); Southern Nigeria Protectorate
Unencyclopaedic: Colonial Nigeria; Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.; Nigerian Civil War

Wikify: Niger Delta; Nigeria–United States relations; Shamsuddeen Usman
Orphan: Petro-sexual politics; Kingsley Kuku; Sozaboy: A Novel in Rotten English
Merge: Igala people; Subdivisions of Nigeria; Foreign hostages in Nigeria
Stub: Ogoni/Niger Delta News; Midstream; Khana, Rivers State; Ogoni Nine; Bori, Rivers; Compañía Española de Petróleos

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indigenous. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 19 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

</li>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People

You keep reverting my edits and this will do no good. Please do not use HTML, use wikicode. We don't edit HTML pages. Your list that you create has accessibility issues for the blind. The very end section currently serves no purpose. The images serve no purpose. See WP:GALLERY for when to use a gallery. As it currently stands, there shouldn't be a gallery in the article and only inline images. Bgwhite (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it's stated above. The article is in a major restructuring. Using whitespace during coding is standard practice. If you are editing I have not seen the updates in the notice box. They must be of the final editing type which I am not concerned with at this point. This is a wireframe process ONLY. I am using Wikipedia's guidelines for innovation of design elements. If this article is of such importance the heavy research is what is needed at this time. But there is not any assistance with that aspect NOR feedback on any positives. Bgwhite VersoArts (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss why the images are of no importance? Bgwhite VersoArts (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spreading lies in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry. I've never edited on the article's talk page. Entries cannot be deleted.
You left six messages on my talk page within two hours and then took me to ANI when I didn't respond. You left the messages when I was sleeping. People work from different time zones around here. People do not work on Wikipedia all the time.
It obvious you do not understand English very well. I can't understand 1/2 of what you say.
Again do not use HTML. This isn't about whitespace. No, you are not following whatever you are trying to say. This gives a listing of all articles that currently use HTML for lists. At the current moment, it lists only two, including Ogoni People. I'm trying to have you do it correctly.
Why the removal of "The MOSOP's model for Environmental Activistism" section and the images?

All it is a quote, a poem and photos. I can't make out anything of importance there. I can't undersand what the poem and quote has to do with "Environmental Activistism".
The images do not say anything about "Environmental Activistism" nor do they say anything else. I haven't a clue what they are supposed to mean.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the TALK section for discussion of the article.Bgwhite VersoArts (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page. Don't use your army of bots if you don't understand the guidlines of MarkUp in Wiki. And if you don't understand a subject matter, why are you editing content?

Stop with the insults. Just plain stop with putting people down. I DO understand guidelines of Wikimarkup, it is YOU who does not. Any more insults or put downs and I will end any conversations with you. Bgwhite (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page And PLEASE use the TALK section on the article. I don't want to have to deal with your personal rants.

I'm done. You've lied, insulted, put down and just don't have a clue on how to behave around here.

You keep messages in one place. Stop editing my talk page!!! Don't have a conservation in 3 different spots. Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check yourself.Bgwhite VersoArts (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement: "You are not the owner of this page"

@The Banner Do you know what this even means? Explain VersoArts (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you do not understand the principle of the community effort. Nobody owns an article, nobody has exclusive right to edit an article. We do it together. When you don't accept that, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. The Banner talk 10:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner You're the one showing aggressive behavior. The first interaction I had with you is you attacking with "You don't own this page". Why was that entered on the thread? Personal retaliation?

If you judge giving a fact as an attack, why are you still on Wikipedia? This is a community effort, not a private hobby. The Banner talk 13:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner I'm here to accomplish a task. You're irrelevant. The article sat here for 10 years. Don't play like you have an interest in content. You have an interest in trolling and disruption.

December 2014

Hello! VersoArts, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Blackguard 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Blackguard_SF Haha. No thanks. From your page I don't want your problems. And I surely don't want to get jumped in the Teahouse by your friends.

Edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to User talk:The Banner, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

@ The Banner You didn't ask if those are the only pictures in the series. Nor if I am waiting on permissions or edits on others that are in my working queue.

I don't have to. Beside, in the first move I only changed the height. And galleries should be used at the end of the article. The Banner talk 13:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner You don't have to?

@The Banner In the first edit it was a vandalization. Because you stripped everything out and left it there. Doesn't matter. You have support for your aggressions and dishonesty. Here you are talking on my page after complaining I was asking you questions on yours. It's fine. I know you don't have the capability to create content and analyze research.

@The Banner And galleries aren't used only at the end if you read the Style Manual as was suggested. Then we could have gone point by point. That's the problem. You aren't collaborative. You're manipulative. And your first entry on the article's TALK proves it.

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Your continual posting and harassment of other users at their talk pages and spilling the debates of an article into various forums is disruptive. Take this time to read through our policies and guidelines regarding editing in a collaborative environment. As always, this block can be appealed by placing {{unblock|your reason}} on your talk page with "your reason" replaced with the reason why you believe that a block is no longer justified or necessary on this account. only (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Because I don't have any disruptive editing. If I have been warned for behavior on the 3 revert rule I don't have record of it. If I had ben told NOT to make entries on their pages they should have noted that. If they don't want to communicate on these issues. They should not say that I won't. I ask questions. They go silent. Then it vandalize again

Decline reason:

I see plenty of evidence of disruptive editing. The warnings on Banner's talk page are plenty indicative of an uncollegial attitude, as is your tone just about everywhere. Now, at Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People you don't need a literary admin or editor; what you need--but this is just a suggestion--is to communicate with other editors, without antagonizing them so quickly. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2014 (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.

Seeing the aggressive way you responded on my talkpage, with a whole bunch of complete nonsense warnings, it is not so strange that people fall silent. I advice and beg you to start communicating in a polite and friendly way and refrain from templating the regulars. If you don't change your attitude, your next block will arrive soon but it will be longer in term. You are not the sole owner of the article as Wikipedia is a community effort. All others have the right to edit the article. The Banner talk 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@only You see The Banner ABOVE still entering comment, even HERE in this section that was supposed to be an administrative issue? Disrupting the threads again? Specifically AFTER he falsely complains about me on his page? If you don't call this harassment then you just want me set up over and over again. He has issues he needs a block also.

@only He's already threatening with a permanent block. Constistent harassment and entrapment. The Banner

@The Banner "...the regulars". The Regulars, huh? Is that how you get things done? That old internet power structure? Ok. Thanks for letting me know. only

@The Banner You don't have enough integrity to move on. You're the one not liked here at Wikipedia. It's on YOUR talk page. Your inability to discuss issues and content. Only edit wars and silence. That was funny you telling me to change my attitude.

@ only Is there a listing of the administrators on Wikipedia? And possibly a corresponding profile that shows in a tabled or relative way a rating of their efforts. I believe I want to collaborate with an experienced literary editor/admin for an adoption and for this very serious article.

@only Never mind. Found it.

Saying things like this are the reason you are blocked currently. only (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ only Which part?

@ only I'm not allowed to template people for violations who he deems are "regulars"? I'm not supposed to repeat that it's a stacked bias? Or that He's actually harassing me and adding to comments to restructure threads?

It's the "you're the one not liked here at Wikipedia" line shows an inability to collaborate. only (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ only That's not what you linked though. Has the reasoning changed again?

It is what I linked. And, no, not any change of reasoning. Those kind of insults and harassment at talk pages is what led to your block and why you continue to be blocked. only (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ only Why are all of the slights against me ignored? The questions I asked above are deflected. You're going to portend that they have NO VIOLATIONS?

@only That's fine. I'm not really worried about it. I know you're not here to resolve the issue.

@ Drmies So you're saying I can't request to be adopted by an experienced editor as all other Wiki newbies have the privilege to do?

@Drmies Why are you blocking my right to do so?

This whole approach from all the various vandals and angry ed/admin's is from the same tight knit group of people that want some kind of vindication.

VersoArts, you're not listening. I didn't say you couldn't get adopted, I said you didn't need a literary editor. I think one of the problems is that you are simply not well-versed in English; you continually misunderstand others' comments and then lash out against them for these perceived slights. I'm not blocking any right at all, though if you keep repeating these accusations of a conspiracy against you, and in particular accusations of "deep racism", I will block you indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, since you appear to a. not wish to learn and listen (thus mentoring is per definition of no use) and b. to treat Wikipedia as a battleground.
For now, I will block you from using your talk page (your talk page, indeed, editing on Wikipedia in the first place, is not a right but a privilege) since you're only making things worse for yourself. This block will be over soon; please take me seriously when I say that continuing this behavior will probably lead to an indefinite block. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date Format

@ Xanthomelanoussprog As you're well aware I'm on block so I'll comment here for expediency but will also address the your same entry once I come off block.

"I find the date format day-month-year better myself, as the numbers for the day and year are separated by the letters for the month. This is in accordance with MOS. You mean when the event took place, not where the event took place? 22 December 2014 is the same date as December 22, 2014. The article should be a means of clearly and concisely expressing a narrative to the reader; at the moment it doesn't do that. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)"

I understand that formatting and the uses of it. But my question was to the entire body specifically when there will be a timeline used categorized by the month. I know people editing aren't concerned with the issue of the timeline inclusion. But it's a standard block of information used when talking about the Ogoni Movement.

When I was saying WHERE I meant what is the current formatting, not personal preference, but for Africa. But I found an Endian here on Wiki: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Date_format_by_country VersoArts (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:The Banner can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. The Banner talk 21:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner This pertains to your group. WP:BITE

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Continuing harassment while on block. Block is being used for punitive advantages. All other vandals and ed/admin have COI from a region that has a history of discrimination against peoples of the article I am editing. They are adding reports to my talk pages and old parts of threads though I have not entered any comments.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You're blocked for your own conduct, and you may want to take a break before matters escalate any further. Huon (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2014 (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.

VersoArts (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon That's fine.

NOTE: I should have called it what it is. Not "discrimination". It's deep racism.

Ethics (with air quotes)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&action=edit&section=24

 Arrgghhh

Could somebody help VersoArts get a clue. Messages on their talk page, Messages on my talk page and the ANI. At this point, anything I say is going in one ear and out the other. As they did report me to ANI, anything I do will be INVOLVED. Bgwhite (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, and this is not canvassing because our intense mutual dislike is a matter of public record. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this the admin help-line? All sorts of weird admins lurk on this page. You are Tide fan, thus we can only be mortal enemies. Bgwhite (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's spilling over to other people now. The Banner's talk page and Lukeno94's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - [The oil blowout] continued for three weeks, causing widespread pollution and outrage.....reminds me of She arrived in a taxi and a flood of tears Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, aggressive type that VersoArts! The Banner talk 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Ethics (with air quotes) from admins in deleting template reporting and comment entries

Hey Banner, leave 'em be; let them poke you. Simply revert if they place more warnings after the block runs out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I had already figured out that his Wiki-career will be quite short due to his own efforts. The Banner talk 22:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page History before removal of warnings: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&oldid=639323714

ugh

"It [sic] obvious you do not understand English very well. I can't understand 1/2 of what you say." - User: Bgwhite
"I think one of the problems is that you are simply not well-versed in English" - User: Drmies

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A PREPOSTEROUS 2015!

Wikipedia: List of Cabals

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:SCREW

Sniping Criticism

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/SnipingCriticism

Actions by administrators

Many editors think of Wikipedia administrators as judges: They analyze the facts, weigh the arguments, and mete out punishments (blocking people from editing, or at least harshly threatening the miscreants). But that's not the role of administrators. Administrators mostly do administrative tasks involving egregious cases of vandalism, deleting pages, protecting pages involved in edit wars, and so on. Furthermore, as the Wikipedia blocking policy (shortcut: WP:BP) says, blocks are for preventing damage to pages, not punishing users afterwards.

The difference may be difficult to grasp, but it's important. It's why warnings are so critical to fighting vandals and dealing with poor behavior. As well as giving an editor a chance to change his behavior, warnings—if ignored—demonstrate that the editor is unlikely to change his behavior in the future, and a block is the next step to protecting the project. Blocks typically start out being for short durations, and only escalate in length if an editor continues to show that he can't restrain himself from repeating problematic behavior.

Wikipedia has only a small number of administrators—roughly a thousand—who are unpaid volunteers like all Wikipedia editors. Their number has not increased as quickly as Wikipedia has grown (see Figure 11-3), making their limited time a valuable resource that Wikipedia needs to protect. That's why, in the processes described next, there's so much emphasis on ways that editors can solve problems themselves, or get the assistance of other editors, rather than asking administrators for help.

heh...Forest Fire

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ForestFire

Idiots

Don't label the editor who posted something you think is stupid or biased as being an idiot or being biased, even if he has demonstrated stupidity or extreme bias elsewhere.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors

Meatpuppet

The term "meatpuppet" (or "meat puppet") is used as a pejorative description of various online behaviors. The term was in use before the Internet existed, including references in Ursula Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976), the alternative rock band Meat Puppets , and the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson 's Neuromancer (1984). Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The last one wasn't a revert. The last edit was a deletion so I could work in peace offline with that text I contributed.VersoArts (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nevertheless, you were edit warring. I suggest you limit yourself to 1 revert per day to avoid situations such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2014 (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'm working on that and on vector graphics for the MOSOP emblem. So chillax VersoArts (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite So why are you blocking me for text that isn't there? U mad? ROLF! Blocking for punitive reasons? That's against policy. But you know that, but, since when have you ever followed it. And I expected that. VersoArts (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight I don't have to do that when it's clear cases of vandalism. I don't care what you overlook. It's there.

@PhilKnight Yeah. You have a real interesting Talk Page. I see why you were recruited.

Jelly

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jelly

Lynchmob

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/LynchMob

This

Instead...

... of harassing other people, you can also start to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. Your method for HTML-code is overly complex and prone to mistakes. Because of its complexity, it is difficult for other users. The available wiki-code is much easier to use. Why do you refuse to use that? The Banner talk 12:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner So are you going to expand the research of each timeline date. You do know this is just an outline don't you? Each one of those dates that you're OC about has a ton of research to bring to concentration of a paragraph. Are you going to assist? I have two papers on PDF of 200 pages each to sift through right now. Do you want to do that? Or do you want to do the vector icon?

@The Banner Maybe you could also help with the issue of Shell to Sea of Mayo. Or you can outline Wiwa vs. Shell. Again. That timeline was just an outline. No need to worry that much about paragraph structure because as I said, it's a mock up only. It's a wireframe. Get it? A sketch

@The Banner Above in my page you said before you don't have to ask me nothing in collaboration. You'll do what you want. Remember?

@The Banner You don't care about the subject, it's construction or whether I'm correct in approach or elements of literary device. You just want me banned. I screencapped it.

@The Banner I wanna see how far y'all will really go.

@The Banner What good it is to collaborate with you when you erase everything from your TALK pages?

"No need to worry that much about paragraph structure because as I said, it's a mock up only. It's a wireframe." You can't use the article as a draft space, though. The article is "live." If you want to work on a draft of it, you need to put a copy in your user space and work on it there, then move it into the article. You can make it at a page like User:VersoArts/sandbox or User:VersoArts/draft. only (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only Are you paying attention? That what I did. I removed it and then The Banner tattled and told Bgwhite to block me because of it. Check the edit summaries where they're yelling in those summaries to mess up the article's look. That's why I'm blocked because I removed it! ROLF!

only Then The Banner wrote all kinds of stuff in the summaries about putting it back! Tell him to remove it. Not me. I'm following Wiki policies! ROLF!

Bgwhite blocks me for following wiki policy! ROLF! And then PhilKnight couldn't see past his prejudice either. He said I shouldn't have done it. The block stays. ROLF!

So I guess now Bgwhite and only and PhilKnight and all the rest of your cabal are known for attacking others with punitive damage because they want unapproved text on Wiki. And that's not the only time! Look. It's still there. This is deep. (LULZ Tears)

You're jumping to conclusions about my involvement here. All I was suggesting to you was a way that you can work on your text outside the framework of the article. I was trying to help you, but instead I got needlessly attacked. only (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only You're very deeply involved. Very. Aren't you paying attention?

I'm involved in that I blocked you the first time for disruptive editing. I'm not involved in some vast cabal conspiracy to take you down and silence you and your "unapproved text" as you seem to be saying here. only (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@only ok

@only If you're not. Then why are you on my TALK page?

Because I have your page on my watchlist (as a result of my actions previously). When I was looking at my watchlist, I saw you were posting things and took a look through what you were saying. I decided to reply to give you [what I thought was and was intended as, at least] some advice to help you with the on-going situation/conflict. only (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only uh huh. Why give me that advice now? You know how everything happened. Doesn't it look dishonest for you to tell me to do something I did that got me blocked?

only So it's okay if one wants to disregard Wiki policy. As long as it's punitive against me right? Is that what you're saying?

"Doesn't it look dishonest for you to tell me to do something I did that got me blocked?" The advice I gave you here was to work on the article as a draft in your userspace. In no way were you blocked for working on an article in your userspace. I don't see what you're getting at here. only (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only haha. I don't knock down strawmen. Have some integrity at some point.

only That's what's wrong with this group you nest with. You and they have no ethics nor moral integrity. It's going to get worse.

only There are other options at ANY wiki users disposal. Doesn't matter if you've informed me of the correct procedure. There is one. Just wondering if you and Bgwhite, Drmies, PhilKnight and the long list of meatpuppets at your disposal are ready to go before the board with this. Your myopia or powertrip makes you falsely believe there hasn't been record kept or a live watch. Y'all let me know what you want to do.

Correction: "It doesn't matter if you haven't informed me of the correct procedure. There is one. | only, Bgwhite, Drmies, PhilKnight

Urban Dictionary: ROLF

def. Rolling On Laughing Floor

"The floor is laughing while we are rolling on it"

"...can prevent Forest Fires"

Edit deletion from TALK @ Bgwhite

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgwhite&action=edit&oldid=639789158

User:VersoArts. Some concerns.
Hi Bgwhite, I have recently encountered your conflict with User;VersoArts. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Although your edits regarding Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People are correct, your handling of the situation has been completely unacceptable. Going through this user's edits, s/he appears to be WP:HERE, and considering that the user only joined a few weeks ago, the correct approach would be to WP:AGF and immediately educate the user on the user's talk page. However, you reverted the user twice before telling the user "You keep reverting my edits and this will do no good" on the user's talk page. This is not educational and easily aggravates a user that is not familiar with Wikipedia. It would have been better had you introduced the user with WP:MOS. In fact, you never mentioned the Manual of Style to the user on the user's talk page. I am fully aware that the user was in the wrong, but your approach seems to have provoked the conflict. Much of your responses to the user consist of commands, which can provoke further conflict, rather than educational comments. For all we know, the conflict could have been avoided entirely, had you approached this situation differently.
As it stands, it looks as though you have, at least partially, violated WP:ADMINACCT by your "Failure to communicate" clearly, especially to a newbie. This is not intended to be a personal attack, but rather a suggestion to help the encyclopedia grow, by retaining new users. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner. :) --Bogu Slav 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The cabal's use of a vandal to strip and destroy MOSOP article images while I was on a punitive block

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Either_way

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shell_nigeria.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Didym

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Either_way

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nigeria_Licenses.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vogonslayer

WP:GAMING

Wikimobocracy

Wikimobocracy is a system of wiki governance in which decisions are not made by a god-king or by an orderly wikidemocratic system, but rather by (sometimes unruly) mobs who possess power to ignore the rule of law (sometimes by expansive powers of interpretation) and make decisions on an ad-hoc basis. Certain Wikipedia processes, such as WP:ANI, seem to resemble lynch mobs in some cases, with jeering crowds assembling (often for their own entertainment) and causing a great deal of confusion and emotional drama by the often sarcastic and insulting comments they hurl. The more processes become dominated by people acting on personal feelings and a desire to rush to judgment, rather than by coolheaded argumentation patiently analyzing the applicable logic and facts, the more the processes resemble a mobocracy.

Part of the reason for establishing arbitration committees was to rescue users, especially in emotionally-charged situations, from hasty, ill-advised decisions by the mob. However, this has arguably come at the cost of entrenching a new de facto oligarchy whose electoral process is engaged in by only a few hundred users out of many thousands. One could argue that in any case, the elected rulers will tend to represent the prejudices of their electorate, so the republican system does not actually do much to solve the problem of mob rule.

Wikindividualism

Wikipedia: It's not about you.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

So you block to keep me for responding at ANI so I can't respond there or here? Are your vandals going to attack the MOSOP article again? VersoArts (talk) 5:13 am, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

The reason for your block is that it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. You will find more details in the discussion at ANI that you opened yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2014 (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.

You block because I'm making a report about harassment and abuse. Really? I didn't even finish all the links at ANI in my reporting. That mob attack and closure was pretty blatant.

So what's the reason I'm blocked indefinitely? No discussion? That's against policy.

Why are there like 10 people all in the ANI discussion?

{{unblock|There was no discussion at ANI. I was blocked from responding. You know that. Is that allowed? Kudpung}}

You had time to file a complaint. After that, you had enough time to respond (about half an hour) but did not respond. Your were not blocked for that period. The Banner talk 22:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner It wasn't half an hour. Prove it with timestamps. Drmies was the one to answer. Why are you here?

It's actually not all that important, but you posted twice at ANI, one after the other, the first at 21:30 and the second at 21:36. I blocked you at 22:06.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Why are you in such a panic? Thought you could hide that stuff real deep? The way you tried to hide it made it WORSE!

@The Banner Like I said in my entry at ANI. I haven't put up all the supporting links.

You filed the complaint at 21.30 ([1]). You got blocked 36 minutes later ([2]).

It is no problem that you did not put up all the links. The effect would have been the same. You have no serious case against Drmies but you did put down some ugly, unsourced accusations. People did read your talk page and that alone convinced many of the participants of the fact that you were not here to write a neutral, good quality encyclopedia. If you have been posting more links about Drmies, it is more than likely that other people would have started to file links about your harassing behaviour, so you would have been blocked anyway. But now you got what in Wiki-slang is known as a boomerang. You throw a case at AN/I but the case turns around and only hits you. Good luck. The Banner talk 23:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

You can read the blocking administrator's rationale here in the ANI report that you opened yourself. You appear also not to read (or understand) instructions for making unblock requests, so if you persistently ask why you were blocked and repeatedly make unblock requests I will revoke your talk page access. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง That's a WP:BITE. Very rude and abusive. I request for you to hand this over to a neutral admin. That's your requirement because you're not following WP:ADMINACCT. You're abusive. VersoArts (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Doesn't your page say you'are semi-retired and don't anyone dare bother you about complex issues that may take up your time? Why are you on this as oversight ADMIN? Do you have a COI relationship with Drmies? The people that flocked to the ANI board did. They all hang onto his TALK page. That's bad form.

You accused someone of "ethnic slurs". Instead of complaining about being blocked, you should find any evidence of ethnic slurs and post it here. I assure, it will be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::Your talk page access has been withdrawn. To see the reasons please see your block log. To make further unblock requests please follow the instructions you have been given. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.