User talk:EagleScout18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

== November 2008 ==

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide example of "Non-constructive." Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My First "Help Me"[edit]

{{help me}}

There appears to be a problem according to the above user. I am removing his original research--- it also appears he is operating with two handles, a name and an IP address. He also appears to be engaging in edit warring. Please advise how to proceed. Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting in good faith something that appears to be vandalism is not edit-warring. There is no requirement for users to log in to edit. The best places to handle your questions are at his talk page (to ask, politely, about his reasons), and at the article talk page to discuss whether or not those figures are original research. [ roux ] [x] 01:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have done this, politely. Also, please note that while not logging in is permissible, not logging in to build the appearance of consensus, or to dodge 3RR rule, is. Reverting correct figures is vandalism, which this user has done. Reverting sourced information is vandalism, which this user has also done. To add, he is violating Wikipedia: No original research. I have posted information that this user disagrees with, which is clearly NOT vandalism. If it continues, I will have no choice but to take it to the notice boards. EagleScout18 (talk)

It looks like what that user did was not vandalism. Please don't start drama. If you wish to improve an article, please take it to the article's talk page. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have done this, politely. Also, please note that while not logging in is permissible, not logging in to build the appearance of consensus, or to dodge 3RR rule, is. Reverting correct figures is vandalism, which this user has done. Reverting sourced information is vandalism, which this user has also done. To add, he is violating Wikipedia: No original research. I have posted information that this user disagrees with, which is clearly NOT vandalism. If it continues, I will have no choice but to take it to the notice boards. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Dropped by to say sorry about the edit conflicts earlier on that Ralph Nader Page. Huggle said it was un constructive, and the vandals kept rising.. So I mistakened you for a vandal. Sorry. II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing, asking someone else for something which I did wrong, is okay... But Being so dramatic about it and "bringing it to the noticeboards" is something more un civil-ish. I wouldnt do that If I we're you, And Im Sure neither would others... So try calming down. Thanks. II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if youre gonna report be to ANI ,okay, but it just doesnt sound right. :S II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith, Restored[edit]

If there was a mench award, it would go to II MusLiM HyBRiD II . It takes a big person to do what he did today. Cheers, EagleScout18 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks. Now if you dont mind me asking, whats a mench? Lol, Im only 13, and Im kinda slow, Lol. ^_^ Cheers! II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 03:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL that's funny! Okay, a mench is Yiddish for a very VERY good person, "a human being, upright, honorable, decent person, someone to admire"! Hey, we should create the WP article... :) EagleScout18 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Never was good at yiddish. And yep, we should.II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
)... cool, next project. And I've got to work on my user page, too, when I get myself together :≈O
Anyways, Im gonna go now. Get some sleep 10:30 pm here in new york. :S Take care! ^^II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take good care, II MusLiM HyBRiD II , enjoy your zzzzzzzzzsss :) EagleScout18 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader articles[edit]

No problem, so far it's been a pleasure. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You rock :) EagleScout18 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little worried about hitting it too hard. One edit involves counting the number of times the term was used, another leads the paragraph with Nader used the term Uncle Tom. I don't like either, because they skirt WP:OR and add commentary. I really think the best thing to do with this, given WP:BLP, is to report the bare bones facts given by the sources. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request granted[edit]

I reported him as a suspected Sock Puppet and requested a new Check User on his IP. BillyTFried (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm trying to fix the articles. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


{{Help me}}

I am having problems with a user who is repeatedly vandalizing my Talk page. What is the procedure? Please help. Thank you. EagleScout18 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You've been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, pushing an agenda, and generally acting inappropriately towards building an encyclopedia. This block, can of course, be appealed by using {{unblock|your text here}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:02, 4 December 2008 (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).

EagleScout18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's difficult to respond to this indefinite block, which came without formal warning, and which I found unjustified. My decision was thus to ignore it and abandon hope of contributing. However, since Baseball Bugs, who has attended quite a number of his own "block parties," as he revels in calling them, has seen to post taunts directed at me on several talk pages while flaunting this block, knowing I am unable to respond elsewhere, and has labeled me a "troll" per User talk:Ryulong, I'm somewhat damned if I do and damned if I don't respond. It remains a challenge to reply rationally to irrationality, or calmly to aggression. I think the note left by Writegeist on Talk:Barack Obama says it best. EagleScout18 (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing your contributions I don't believe that you are here to improve the encyclopedia. — Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2008 (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 would respond that your beliefs are incorrect. I have already supplied contributions that improve Wikipedia, which others have duly noted. Thank you Writegeist, who hit nail on head. EagleScout18 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you'll lodge a second appeal in the hope of review by a sysop who has the smarts to see that the block is unwarranted. Good luck. — Writegeist (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock requests consisting of complaints about other editors will typically be rejected, no matter who the admin is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that remark is unhelpful and at least partially untrue in this instance.
The unblock request at issue self-evidently does not "consist of complaints about other editors." And if the inference of this accusation is, as it appears to be, that ES18's request consists of complaints about Baseball Bugs specifically, then the inference looks retaliatory, and unjustifiably so. ES18 makes no complaint about Baseball Bugs. Indeed far from being a whiner, ES18 seems quite the stoic: he simply cites Baseball Bugs's behaviour, without criticism or complaint, as having, in effect, boxed him in by making him, as he puts it, damned if he responds to the block and damned if he doesn't. (His view may or may not be correct, but that's the view as he expresses it. Right or wrong, it's a coolly stated observation, not a complaint.)
When a contributor appeals against the very serious sanction of an indefinite block, I think it's important that we're scrupulously fair and truthful in our characterizations of the appellant's statements, just as there should be fairness and honesty in the appraisal of his contributions. Also we must take care not to prejudice reviewers against the appellant by inserting a distorted or even wholly false picture of his behaviour into the record — particularly where it might be seen to validate any pre-existing and possibly inaccurate characterizations which, stated or implied by a group opposed to the editor, may have contributed to sanctions against him or her. Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Writegeist. EagleScout18 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (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).

EagleScout18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See comment reason above. EagleScout18 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Discussion below isn't enough for reversal but we'll look again in a few weeks. — Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2008 (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.

It may be helpful for the reviewing admin to read the following exchanges from the "Germany protest ban" section of Obama talk. I have struck through a part that's irrelevant to the to and fro about ES18:

Extract begins:

Really? So that's the reward for fairly harmless, albeit somewhat idiosyncratic, behaviour that includes calling a spade a spade and coolly standing up for oneself in the heat of what looked suspiciously like a witch-hunt? Did EagleScout18 grow a wart on his/her nose? Hang out with a black cat? (Answers on my talk page please.) Just curious. Oh well. Being a witch, he/she has presumably mastered Shape-shift 101 and will return as someone (or -thing) else, casting horrible spells to afflict his/her tormentors with boils etc. And while I'm driving by:
  • Oppose inclusion. Suppressing freedom of expression is so commonplace in democracies as to be a cliché; therefore not sufficiently notable for the summary. — Writegeist (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought an indef-block was a bit excessive, but I also suspected he was merely trolling, and he hasn't uttered a whimper since being blocked, so I suspect my suspicion was correct. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "bit" excessive? A bit of an understatement. As you say, it was all suspicion. And whereas a scamper through ES18's contribs shows that the majority are clearly intended to improve the encyclopedia, his block appeal was nevertheless declined (by a sysop just three months into the job) with the Kafkaesque judgement that "after reviewing your contributions I don't believe you are here to improve the encyclopedia". (Emph. added.) Indefinitely blocking editors who are generally (and demonstrably) well-intentioned will hardly improve the encyclopedia. "...hasn't uttered a whimper since being blocked"? Not true. See ES18's talk page for his/her remarkably civil (under the circs) response to the sysop in question. As you predicate your suspicion about your suspicion on your belief that ES18 was silenced by the block, this evidence to the contrary will now, I'm happy to say, relieve you of your specious suspicion. (If you follow me.) :~) Any reply, my talk please. — Writegeist (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He showed the all-to-typical signs of just being here to push an agenda, and did it in a rather disruptive and typically tendentious, aggressive manner. A good block and good riddance, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also, what I said about him being silent was true at the time. His unblock request since then, consisted of complaints about other editors, an approach which typically will result in a decline no matter who the admin is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I can't let that go uncorrected. It is absolutely untrue that his unblock request "consisted of complaints about other editors." He cited in a neutral and totally uncomplaining manner the fact (as he sees it) that Baseball Bugs's pejorative references to him after he was blocked made him feel that he was damned if he appealed and damned if he didn't. The actual text is there for all to see on his talk page. Please. Let's have accuracy in reporting on this serious issue. — Writegeist (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extract ends.

- Writegeist (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle, would you like to give an example of an edit you would do if unblocked? Nothing personal but I don't think this comment or this comment is helping you. The first I find uncivil (you may argue you were joking but I still think you shouldn't have said that) and the second is not the type of attitude of someone who is interested in neutrality, which is crucial to an controversial article like the one you were on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, if you look over history that culminated in those comments, you may find them relatively tame. I apologize if I offended you with these remarks. As for edits, I would like to continue making basic grammatical improvements. I would also like to work with other (hoping for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV) contributors to develop an article that addresses Barack Obama and Afghanistan and Pakistan, which I think will become increasingly more relevant and thus I believe will help Wikipedia get a jump start on the topic. Such an article might also help deter additions pertaining to these issues to Barack Obama-related articles that could lead to edit warring in the future. I also believe that, compared to a number of other contemporary politicians' biographies, the current form Barack Obama-related articles are lacking a balance of sourced, meaningful criticism. Either current articles could use such criticism, or, as one contributor suggested, create a separate article for this. In sum, I find there is room for the above-described content, IMO, that, with proper consensus and dialogue, and without rampant, hostile wisecracks, will greatly improve Wikipedia as a whole, providing a comprehensive base of detailed information. Thank you for your attention. EagleScout18 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to be specific? You were blocked for a very general reason. Responding in generalities doesn't help allay those concerns. At Talk:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama, Talk:Barack Obama and at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, I see that you are consistently the only one arguing a singular viewpoint, against consensus and frankly, the same arguments for the same information again and again. Your generally uncivil conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#But.2C_re:_User:EagleScout18 was quite telling. If you wish to be unblocked, I would suggest a different strategy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was being very specific. I've done my best to communicate my intentions, answered questions and remained calm in a storm. I have done the best I can for you. EagleScout18 (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11 is correct. Also, I'm aware of your editing other people's comments on this page. I didn't want to bring it up but I feel you should know. Again, anything specific beyond "I want to create a new article on a subject where everyone seems to disagree with me"? Are you planning on branching out or just going to keep arguing the same viewpoint on the same articles? Also, as a general note, Wikipedia isn't supposed to "jump start" topics. This is an encyclopedia. It is only supported to report on what has already occurred. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note here from an uninvolved editor, but someone should teach ES18 about WP:TPG, in that, he has not indented a single one of his posts since he started commenting in threads, and it gets hard to read. If he is truly here to improve WP, I'm sure he shouldn't mind making things easier on people.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am always willing to learn. I thought it would be easier to recognize my comments by maintaining the same indenture throughout, but can adopt this guideline if it makes it easier for others to read.
The "jump start" on the topic does address events that have already occurred, as the links provided reveal, and will be growing in significance. There are other editors who support addressing these topics and creating articles (see related talk pages).
I do not edit, but sometimes omit, others' comments on my talk page. I understood that this is permissible.
It was not my intention to "[argue] the same viewpoint." I was advised by Sjessey (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama&diff=255561179&oldid=255560176) to do so. Per comment, below, which appears to have since been deleted, nevertheless remains the reason for my posting to Barack Obama and election article talk pages:
"First source is in a foreign language, and therefore unusable. Second source is okay, but your proposed addition still has nothing to do with Barack Obama's public image. Consider the election article instead (although you will have to find consensus there too). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
I thought I was doing the correct thing by not edit warring and following the advisement of a user who was more experienced. Then I got hit hard with personal attacks and criticism. The templates weren't working correctly. I asked for help with these on two occasions and didn't receive any. I copied the style of a template from another page verbatim, still labeled incorrect. The attacks were mounting. I was accused of being a "sockpuppet," and a "troll," and it began to appear as though there was a deliberate attempt to "trigger" a response from me that would lead to a block. The attacks became ever more personal. I tried to employ humor. Wikidemon, also a more experienced user, and I believe with good intention, advised me to respond in like kind, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikidemon&diff=255749709&oldid=255748913. Then I was indefinitely blocked. So, how specifically would I improve Wikipedia? I've answered to the best of my ability. I'd be inclined to ask someone more experienced to advise me, but that hasn't been going too well so far. So, I remain, unclear; but, I think willingness to expend precious and limited time to dialogue in a forthwith, calm and rational manner is a good start. EagleScout18 (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, re: "I asked for help with [the RfC templates] on two occasions and didn't receive any" - EagleScout18's request for help was responded to here. checking for replies to requests is sometimes worthwhile. Sssoul (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, I checked back on three occasions and this information wasn't there. But then the response wasn't that prompt. EagleScout18 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting a warm fuzzy from this conversation yet, so I want to ask a couple questions too? I noticed that you want to stick narrowly to Barack Obama related articles and issues. My question, which is about the same as others above, would be beyond Barack Obama related articles, what other articles would you be interested in editing (Please name a few), how would you edit these articles, and please name a few non Barack Obama related topics that you would be interested in creating articles in? Finally, also to show us you are well meaning, please relate to us how you would work with the consensus of the other editors in editing and commenting on an article and also how being civil in working towards a consensus can help other understand your view point? Thanks for replying. Brothejr (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sorry, I'm not a very warm and fuzzy type, but there's my attempt. If you look at my edit history, you'll notice that I quite like a variety of topics. I'm interested in U.S. presidential election and political-related articles in general. I'd also like to look at some of the twentieth century world history articles. I've not had must chance to really dig in. It might be exciting to expound on the United States presidential election debates. I think it could use some work. Also electoral college and Third party (United States). My present focus has been on Barack Obama-related articles, in part because of the scenario described above, in part because of the block. Nevertheless, I would never "stick narrowly" to any single topic. As for article creation, I've mentioned one about Barack Obama and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Perhaps an international relations article in the future. As for how I would work with others, I'm displaying that to the best of my ability-- here. And if you look at dialogues on Ralph Nader-related pages, all you need is there. Writegeist so far took head and hit nail most squarely. I'm generally a civil-minded person, and then there are some who like to try and push buttons. I excel in recognizing the difference between opposition of ideas and personal opposition. I can be humorous yet remain calm in social crisis. I don't support bullying, or authoritarian head games. I don't like it when people try to use shame or humiliation to pound people into submission. Dignity, respect, humor, and, when all else fails, a little fire with fire. Tempered with fairness. Proof in da puddin'... Thank you for asking! Best, EagleScout18 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like others have asked, it seems like you have a desire to continue to focus on Obama-related articles. Do you understand why everyone is concerned when it is clear that your views are not within general consensus on those topics? You tried to put the exact same statement on three different pages and was rejected every time. You were blocked and it seems like in response, you suggest that you would create an article on a new topic about Obama when it is clear that there is nothing in the news that you could report about him. Until he is president, what would the article be? Conjecture on how his leadership will affect the region? If it's just his prior statements, then that's already in the election article. Frankly, given your behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#But.2C_re:_User:EagleScout18 and your lack of contrition, I think I'm being far too generous in not rejecting your request right now. At the same time, do you want to explain your choice to remove the edits of other people from your talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like others, I remove comments that are unfriendly, unwelcome, unwanted or simply inapplicable, as was the previous conversation. I prefer others use their own talk pages to dialogue such matters.
"You tried to put the exact same statement on three different pages and was rejected every time." See my comment, above.
"Conjecture on how his leadership will affect the region?" See links, it is already an issue.
Thank you for your time and attention, appreciated, EagleScout18 (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Protection[edit]

I would like to request protection for the current version of my talk page, if this is possible. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A length of time? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to your counsel. It may be a good idea for a 20-30 day period. Thanks so much, EagleScout18 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EagleScout18&oldid=1142981928"