User talk:Gattosby

May 2010[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Allen Dorfman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --moreno oso (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 03:39, 1 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Pardon?

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. --auburnpilot talk 04:22, 1 June 2010 (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.

Total Ass=You[edit]

--Milowent (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By which Milowent probably means that contributors at AfD resent taking the time to properly investigate an AfD and weigh up the sources for it, only to find that it was a bad faith nomination made as part of a continuing personal vendetta. We would prefer to spend our time on articles that may legitimately warrant deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal vendetta. I am not a "sockpuppet" either. Gattosby (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You create an account on Wikipedia on 28 June and your first actions are to go through Richard Arthur Norton's account history and procedurally nominate a string of his sourced, illustrated, stubs about people from the early half of the century? Just by coincidence? And you've never held an account previously and don't have a history with RAN? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total sock. Case closed. You aren't even inventive in sockiness, man.--Milowent (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first article surfing on Wikipedia was the "Donkey Show" article since I saw it in Clerks 2. There i saw it listed for AFD and I voted to keep it. That's how i got familiar with AFD and Richard. I also wrote a few articles and spent the rest of the weekend reading up on WP:N and the like. Gattosby (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, give it up. Don't make me prove you are a sock, it would not be appropriate.--Milowent (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it! Gattosby (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your sock source!--Milowent (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up, i'm just trying to help the project by contesting poorly-notable articles. Gattosby (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm just doin' shrooms all day and listening to the The Shaggs. But I knew that Anna Thompson Dodge was more popular than Paris Hilton back in her heyday. Sorry to hear you didn't.--Milowent (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the part I liked the best, from this "editor's" user page: "Hello all. I have spent this long holiday weekend studying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:BLP, and WP:BIO. I hope to put these into practice soon." That was just so incredibly CONVINCING, man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

errors in article[edit]

The one substantial article this editor has worked on Allen Dorfman seems to be inaccurate; the entire article is based on a single book, and the second part of the career as given in the article, is totally at odds with dozens of good newspaper sources. I cannot tell if the book is inaccurate, or whether it was used improperly. I have fixed the article to match the sources. I am checking all other contributions from this editor. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your block[edit]

Gattosby: I suspect you already know this given your familiarity with AfD, but in case you don't: neither of the editors in the above discussion is obliged to prove you anything. The block was made by User:NuclearWarfare, completely independently of this conversation, and he's the first port of call for getting it revoked. You can find more information about your block, and how to appeal it, at WP:BLOCK, and you can find Wikipedia's policies on abusing multiple accounts (and how the blocking admin can prove it) at WP:SOCK. In the event you are unblocked, I'd advise you to avoid further interaction with Richard Arthur Norton and his articles. There's plenty of other Wikipedia for you to improve. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block comment[edit]

As noted on ANI, this block has been confirmed by a checkuser. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]