User talk:Bigsaidlover
Your edit on my talk page[edit]
Hello, please do not edit other users' comments placed on my talk page, including mine, as you did earlier today. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments for this matter. In short, altering or falsifying other people's comments is not accepted, whether on my talk page or anywhere else. Thank you for your cooperation. --Catgut (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. You have been blocked for a week, mostly because I felt like it. I know that this is abuse of admin powers, but, hey, you are not going to complain because you and me don't really care about the rules, do we? In a week your block will expire - unless I just decide to extend it - and you can start again. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Bigsaidlover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What you've been participating in is an experiment by an (admittedly old-fashioned) American academic researching the effects of new media on the literary. I've been very provocative on the Said thing; probably unnecessarily so. But what has been nevertheless systematically proven by your reactions to my interventions is that the Wikipedia now violently suppresses the mutability of its own form (which so attracted initial users) and has wholly institutionalized the representational structures it had seemed, originally, to subvert so well. By incorporating these structures, Wikipedia has embraced a power complex worse than print encyclopedias or even Encarta, because it not only offers the same old flat, singular version of the truth but does so under the appearance of representational democracy. By blocking clever dissent, the once living encyclopedia Wikipedia has put the final nail in its own coffin.
(I suppose the good news, for the Wiki-world at least, is that now it can begin to sell itself to us; just another product on the market.)
The test of a democratic literary culture is its capacity to support not only dissent and outlandish views, but fictions. Wikipedia is not a democratic literary culture, and the integrity of its content--however increasingly coherent it may seem to the lay-user--can only decline.
If you unblock me, you have my word that I will never touch the Naipaul page--or any editor's comments--again.
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblock provided. You seem to have the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is democratic; it isn't. "Representational democracy"? Not at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 8 April 2009 (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.
- I would comment that the editor has undertook not to edit another contributors comments - which was the basis of the block. I invite you to re-asses the unblock request. I am currently indef blocking a number of sockpuppets, but would consider allowing the main account to participate in accordance with WP policies as long as they also agree not to sock further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You have my word.
- You have been unblocked. You may find you are still unable to edit if the sockpuppets you created are on the same ip address, as the autoblock will still be in effect. I am tempted to say that this is down to your further attempts at conducting experiments within the Wikipedia editing environment, but if you are anxious to contribute to the encyclopedia I will attempt to release them. I shall continue to watch this page for your response. I would lastly comment that blocks can be far more easily re-applied than lifted, just should your scientific urges get the better of you again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)