== 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]

{{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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• You can warn the user for vandalism, and if they keep it up, file a report at WP:AIV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See comment reason above. [[User:EagleScout18|EagleScout18]] ([[User talk:EagleScout18#top|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See comment reason above. [[User:EagleScout18|EagleScout18]] ([[User talk:EagleScout18#top|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See comment reason above. [[User:EagleScout18|EagleScout18]] ([[User talk:EagleScout18#top|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}