User talk:Craddock1

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amirite.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Amirite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SarahStierch (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Amirite[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Amirite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amirite for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amirite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Social media, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, Zymurgy (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Amirite.com Article[edit]

I'm not the one who made the Articles for deletion nomination. Delicious carbuncle was the one who did so; you'd be better off talking with that user. Also, I can't close the nomination right now per the Articles for deletion project rules; it would have to be done by an admin. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links on social media[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message. The main social media articles are referenced in the lead so it didn't seem appropriate to include a selection plus some newer ones per your edit. Good luck with your editing--Zymurgy (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Craddock1. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk it out, why don't we[edit]

If you're going to refuse to respond to my points, I'll be forced to take this to ANI. You can't simply restore off-topic criticisms of another editor and then refuse to justify it. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'll get back to you later today -I'm about to go to work,

Thanks,

Philip

December 2012[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirite, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: PeterWesco was advancing his arguments as he was going over specific references. He also apologized for any offense. You were warned to not remove comments before and you have now received your final warning. Do not remove or alter other editor's comments in any way. You may address editor's arguments by adding your comments or a rebuttal to their argument. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal[edit]

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).

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, I was in the middle of a discussion regarding my block when I was blocked. Please unblock my account since I have promised not to do personal attacks again even though I was informing the admin's about the editors behavior. I am new to WIkipedia so hope you can give me another chance. Also the people involved in the discussion were <(partially incorrect) age details removed>/ I hope you will fairly and objectively assess the matter. The fact that I made 74 edits to my own new article is not 'trolling'. Craddock1 06:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, you have made an egregious violation of policy by tracking a possibly underage editor to another website with the threat of contacting them in real life. This unblock request is declined. MBisanz ^talk 06:47, 2 January 2013 (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.

Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were under 16...Craddock1 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing an editor's age on Wikipedia when they have not disclosed it on Wikipedia is also a violation of policy. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 2 January 2013 (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).

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there - I didn't mention I would contact them and never intended too...this link was mentioned on their profile page and I was copying the link to show they were <age details removed>. They have disclosed their age as <age details removed>. We were in a discussion to temporarily block me from editing an article and now I have been permanently blocked despite me explaining that i will not break the rules again?. Craddock1 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The outing was only one of many problematic parts of your conduct. The very reason you brought up the editor's age was to insult them for it, as well as many other instances of personal attacks and trolling at the ANI discussion. The reason the ANI conversation was going on, in turn, was because of your disruptive and unacceptable behavior at yet another discussion. You haven't given any reason to believe you've understood that, or that unblocking you wouldn't just lead to more disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 2 January 2013 (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.

They did not disclose their age on Wikipedia. Researching someone's age via Facebook and then posting it on Wikipedia is prohibited unless they have already disclosed their age on Wikipedia.

CommentThis is the link on their wikipedia page: (removed) Anyone who would click on this link would conclude (remove). How am I supposed to know not to click on links and make conclusions. I know now and have learnt me lesson and it won't happen again. Can you unblock me now please.

If you unblock me I promise to adhere to all rules. You can watch me closely and if I break one rule you can block me again...Craddock1 07:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I was in the middle of responsing to an AFC debate about an article I created. If I am not able to respond the article will get deleted since I have done hours of research on the topic.Craddock1 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You've broken the policy AGAIN by posting the link to their facebook page. If you continue to violate policy by posting personal information in that manner, your talk page access will be revoked. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oh sorry - I thought this page was hiddenCraddock1 07:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've learnt my lesson now so can you unblock me please?Craddock1 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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).

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my case.

The reason I brought up the age is because I thought that these types of decisions should only be decided by 'adults' and people over 18.

I understand now what you are saying and want to apologies for my disruptive behavior

I have learn't my lesson and it won't happen again. You can watch me closely and if I do one thing wrong you can block me again, ok? Craddock1 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nobody should give a shit about Wikipedians' age. It is absolutely irrelevant and highly offensive. I don't see how you can be unblocked outside of WP:OFFER. Max Semenik (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2013 (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 in the process of writing a comment to Craddock1 on how he should properly format an unblock request. I'd appreciate if the reviewing admin could hold off on declining this for a bit, since I'd like to see if, once it's all been thoroughly spelled out for him, he's capable of doing it the right way. If you don't see this as a compelling reason to hold off on declining, and least please don't revoke talk page access yet, since I think this is much more of a CIR situation than a trolling one. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment written. See below. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2₵[edit]

I think everyone deserves a fair chance at getting unblocked. I'm not an admin, but I'm fairly familiar with how things work around here, so here's my approximation of what it would take for you to get unblocked:

Read all of the following policies: WP:OUTING, WP:NPA (especially WP:NPA#WHATIS), WP:BATTLE, WP:GD (especially WP:GD#General advice), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and, of course, WP:GAB
Promise to not engage in any of the following behaviors: ad hominem attacks, overreaction to accusations, accusations of sockpuppetry, incivility, and repeatedly ignoring warnings or advice
Agree to not contribute any more to the AfD. Seriously. You've said all there is to be said. Keep on editing the article, fine, but really, going on any longer will just be disruptive. Nothing you say can circumvent consensus, and so far there hasn't even been a strong consensus to delete; you've probably done more damage by going on so long than any of the "delete" !votes have done.

(Just so you know, if it's deleted, you can request that the admin who deleted it transfer it to your userspace, where you can work on it, resolving any issues cited as grounds for deletion).

Agree to seek mentoring on Wikipedia guidelines and process, especially when it comes to the technical side - how to format comments and the like. Poor formatting isn't in and of itself grounds for blocking, but everyone's patience wears thin eventually.
Retract the mark you made about some "governance committee". Admins are expressly prohibited from unblocking you if you've made any legal threats.
Apologize to A Wiggin13 (talk · contribs) and myself for the accusations you made against us. Believe it or not, there's more than one gay teen out there who speaks French.
Apologize to Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) and PeterWesco (talk · contribs) for disrupting the AfD with ad hominem attacks.
Assure everyone that you will never again comment on another editor's age unless they have clearly stated it on their userpage. Better yet, say you'll never comment on another editor's age, since there's pretty much never a good reason for it.
Mend any other fences you can think to mend, and agree to not engage in any other behavior that is identified as problematic.

To be honest, even with all this I can't promise you you'll get yourself unblocked. But this is the only way, IMHO, you can even have a shot at it. If you ask me, you're not a troll; a troll intentionally disrupts the project, but does little damage. I don't believe that your disruption has been intentional, and I think it's been far more disruptive than any run-of-the-mill trolling. The only way to get unblocked is to acknowledge that you understand why you were blocked, and that you will do everything in your power to avoid such behavior again. You've already filed three unblock requests that fail to do this. If you file a few more, admins may lose their patience, and revoke your talk page access. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Thanks for taking the time to write such a long message - I appreciate this.

In terms of what I said about the age - I didn't mean to cause offense. I thought I read somewhere that you had to be over 18 to make these decisions but I think I was getting confused with the check user privileges.

I have already read some of those policies but will read the rest later today. I am not a troll - I just need time to get used to all these acronyms, policies etc.

From what started out with me writing an article about my favourite website has turned into a massive thing which was not what I was expecting.

I really don't have any more time to argue and debate with the usrs since its clear they just want it deleted despite what I have said. For example one user just wrote there is another site called Amirite.net. This is Amirite.com!! This is precisely why I had to keep responding on the AFC delete page.

In terms of the rest I agree to do them (of course I can only apologise once I am unblocked) - can you apologise for me?

On a side note I am actually French and Jewish (shame about the gay part though:) Craddock1 09:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)}}

Note: I am temporarily deactivating your unblock request. I will explain why in a moment, and I assure you that it is not because I'm trying to stop you from getting unblocked. You are, of course, free to re-activate it, which you can do by removing the text tlx| from the start of the template, and the 2= from before your reason. (If you're not sure how to do that, just say that you'd like to re-activate it, and I'll do it for you... but really, I promise I have a good reason.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're approaching things more civilly right now. I think, though, that you may have overlooked my most important point: You need to find a mentor. I'm sorry to say this, but you do; no admin is going to let you return to editing without knowing that there's someone trustworthy looking after you, and telling you when you slip up. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

As for the apologies, if you apologize here, I'll notify everyone to whom you apologize. I encourage you to clearly state what you've done wrong, that you know it was inappropriate, and that you won't do again. Just like your parents made you when you were little.

Most importantly, I think you still have a way to go before you're ready to be unblocked - admins unblock you after you make things right, not simply when you promise that you will. That's why I've deactivated your request for the time being. First you should use this talk page to have all of the necessary discussions; then you should request unblocking. (If you're willing to take my word for it, I'll tell you when you've done enough to have a realistic chance of submitting another request. This is a process I'm fairly familiar with, having seen numerous editors go through it in my anti-vandalism work, and having *gasp* even gone through it myself once.)

On a minor note, you should also make it clear whether or not you're willing to refrain from commenting on the AfD.

And, out of curiosity, when you say "shame about the gay part though", do you mean it's a shame that that's one thing we don't have in common, or do you mean it's a shame that I'm gay? If the latter, I don't believe that that specifically violates any policy, but I'd personally like to know before going ahead. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol no I meant its a shame its not in common. I have a lot of gay friends so you don't need to worry that I am against gays:)

In terms of the AFC article I can promise I wont repeat myself but if I have an advancing argument or need to respond to someone who is clearly wrong then I will do so but in a polite manner only. How about I ask you before I post something to it and if you agree I will? The problem with this though is that I am up at stupid hours and so you won't be up.

Ok I'll look for a mentor - can you be a mentor since I don't know anyone else on Wikipedia lol?

Here is my apology to the users: I apologize for seeming rude earlier. Sometimes frustration gets the better of me and I shouldn't of made those ad hominem remarks. They certainly won't happen again. Have a great day!

ThanksCraddock1 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

CommentOn a side note would you mind closing the article / deleting it. The AFC debate has now been hijacked with nonsense (from both sides) and I no longer want the article up there.Craddock1 10:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally hesitant to undertake mentoring you, for a variety of reasons, having much more to do with me than with you. I'll see if I can find someone else, though.
No, your article cannot be deleted, since other users have made substantial contributions to it since you created it. It's far from a sure thing that it will be deleted, in fact; to be honest, the thing that makes deletion most likely is that you've so thoroughly flooded the AfD that it's difficult to sort out the legitimate "keep" arguments from the off-topic remarks. There's tons of people out there who fight against deletion, so it's not like being nominated means that an article will be deleted no matter what.
I suppose you've met the basic standard for apologies, though considering how many editors took issue with your remarks, I'd encourage you to go to greater length. If you want to stick with your current apology, tell me, and I'll go ahead and pass it on to everyone else, but if you're serious about getting unblocked, some greater detail might be in order. But I'd feel like I'm nagging you if I said that you have to elaborate, so it's your call. If I can find someone to mentor you, they might pick up on all of this.

— Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But because I created the article don't I have a right to delete it since its my own words even though others have edited it? Once it gets deleted by the admin after the debate can I make sure all the content is deleted permanently and no ghost copy is kept?

ok here is my updated apology:

I apologize for seeming rude earlier. Sometimes frustration gets the better of me and I shouldn't of made those ad hominem remarks. I got really offended when Peter said I was a 'backlink' expert since I didn't even know what that meant but I probably should have taken this as a complement. Next time I will be sure to ask what it means and answer in a civil manner. I will also make sure I never personally attack anyone ever again or find links about them from external sites.

That certainly won't happen again.

Have a great day and I hope you can forgive me

By contributing to Wikipedia, you irrevocably agreed to license all of your edits under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Every time you edit, there is a note at the bottom of the "Editing" page informing you of this. So, no, your status as creator gives you no special right to request deletion - imagine if whoever created the United States article requested that we delete it!
I will inform Peter and DC that you have apologized.
I'm still working on that mentor thing; I got caught up doing something else on my way to go find one for you.

— Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Craddock1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, Please see above. I have sincerely apologized and agreed to seek a mentor. I am not a troll, just new here. I have thoroughly read the rules now WP:OUTING, WP:NPA (especially WP:NPA#WHATIS), WP:BATTLE, WP:GD WP:GD#General advice), WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and, of course, WP:GABCraddock1 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Restrictions are in place until April 3, 2013:

you make NO edits to any live articles without the OK of your mentor
you successfully complete the mentoring course by your mentor
you will remain civil at all times
you will change your signature to make it compliant immediately

If you break any of the above, OR if your mentor advises any administrator that they have withdrawn their mentorship, the indefinite block will be re-introduced. These restrictions must remain visible on your talkpage while they are in effect. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:MENTOR and have an adoption course that I would be willing to run Craddock1 through it as well as provide mentoring assistance to him. Though I've never done mentorship as a result of anything other than a new user requesting adoption, I would be willing to give it a shot if Craddock is willing to stipulate to all of the other points laid out by Franco above, particularly the apologies. If an administrator would be willing to unblock on that basis, I would be willing to give mentorship a try. Go Phightins! 01:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks Go Phightins - much appreciatedCraddock1 02:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the proposed restrictions:

For the next 3 months:

you make NO edits to any live articles without the OK of your mentor
you successfully complete the mentoring course by your mentor
you will remain wP:CIVIL at all times
you will change your signature to make it compliant immediately

If you break any of the above, OR if your mentor advises any administrator that they have withdrawn their mentorship, the indefinite block will be re-introduced. These restrictions must remain visible on your talkpage while they are in effect. Do you agree? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Hi there - ok yes I agree - on a side note how long with the mentoring course take because I have full time work so will have limited time?Thanks, Craddock1 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The mentoring course takes as long as you need to complete it based on your availability. Most of us have full-time work too. You'll need to fix your signature (and prove it's fixed) before I unblock, by the way. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've fixed my signature. Would be grateful if you can unblock me now. Thanks Craddock1 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craddock, your mentorship center is located here. Please read what's there, and indicate your acceptance of the terms by affixing your signature at the top of the page. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

One of the conditions of your unblocking was that you "you make NO edits to any live articles without the OK of your mentor". You have already broke that condition with your edit to the Amirite AfD with the same combative behavior. You are to stay away from the AfD and the article as your participation in both was one of the issues that resulted in your block. You are to focus your editing on your mentoring course and only your mentoring course. Consider this your one and only warning to not break the conditions of your unblock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Can you explain to me where there was combative behvaior? The condition of the unblocking was that I make no edits to live articles. The AFD is not a live article - it is a debate where everyone is allowed a say - especially the creator of the article (albeit if I can't edit the article). No-where does it say I am not allowed to contribute to the AFD debate.Craddock1 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sentences of your comment contain the same type of attitude and complaints that were one of the causes of your block. Do not try to wikilawyer your way out of the restrictions. I told you to not edit the AfD, so do not edit it. Your mentoring course also stated "that you make no edits to any page other than this page and your talk page without my permission" which you agreed to. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I agreed that I would not make any edits to any pages, which I won't do. Does the AFC count as a live article? It seems as if you are abusing your power and acting in an authoritarian way: 'I told you to not edit the AFD, so do not edit it'. While I won't edit the AFD without the permission from my mentor from now on I strongly suggest that you treat others equally because while you may be in a position of power acting in a way like this is not productive to the WIkipedia community. Furthermore as per the Administrator rules: An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest.

You have clearly sided with Peterwesco in the edit war as mentioned above and so you do not stand from an objective standpoint.

In addition accusing me of WP:LAWYER is a personal attack which is prohibited on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Craddock1 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I think it's safe to say this is the last warning you're going to get[edit]

To be clear, while Bwilkins said you were to make no edits to any article, Go Phightins! upped the ante (reasonably so, I might add) to "mak[ing] no edits to any page other than [User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Craddock1] and your talk page without [his] permission". ("Page" refers to anything on Wikipedia, whereas "article" refers to the mainspace only.) So that's that. Furthermore, when you were blocked you were a few !votes away from being banned from that AfD, so you really should steer clear of it.

Your accusations against Gogo Dodo are really, really pushing it. If your first response continues to be to go after the person criticizing you, you're not going to keep your head above water much longer. You accuse him of making personal attacks for citing WP:LAWYER, while at the same time accusing him of violating WP:INVOLVED, a policy that an admin can be desysopped for violating.

I put a fair amount of work into getting you unblocked. I'd rather not see that go to waste. However, if I find incivility like this again, I will not hesitate to request that you be re-blocked. You've pushed your luck as far as you can, and I doubt you're going to get another inch. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned I have started the mentoring course and appreciate the time you have put in. No further edits will be made to the AFD without the mentor's permission. I am still allowed to express my opinion on the above on my talk page of what I believe to be a conflict of interest. The standards of an admin should be higher to that of a new user and so he should not have personally attacked me with WP:Lawyer. From now on though I will not reply to anyone but my mentor and you to be on the safe side.Craddock1 (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, saying that you're wikilawyering is NOT an attack: it's a very valid description of your behaviour via your edits, which is permitted - especially considering the thread you're currently hanging by. You have made an absolute mess of the AFD, and your ridiculous actions there are likely going to lead to its deletion, contrary to your desire. Stay away from the AFD - you've screwed it up enough. You have agreed to ONLY edit your mentoring course - obviously, this talkpage and the talkpage of your mentor are within limits as well. Don't stray. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am on my way out now and won't be around again during the weekend, but if on Sunday afternoon when I check your contributions, I will not hesitate to ask for a re-block if I see edits to pages other than this one and the adoption page. Your answers to the present test still don't show much thought, and I won't be looking at them until Sunday, therefore I suggest that you read some relevant policy and cite it in your answers. Remember, if you get blocked again, you won't be able to be even considered for unblock for 6 months, and even then is no guarantee. Please remember that you were unblocked under conditions...consider it like being let out of jail with me as the probation officer. Thanks. Go Phightins! 11:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to health problems and moving house I won't be able to be as active as I had hoped -but I will try and complete the tests in my own time so if I don't reply don't think I am not doing them or learning the rules. ThanksCraddock1 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Craddock1. You have new messages at User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Craddock1.
Message added 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I graded your test; sorry for the delay Go Phightins! 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]