User talk:Rickyrab/discussion archive about bad jokes

This is not an effort to re-create deleted content or to work around a consensus. This is an effort to archive debate concerning BJAODN on my user talk page. Thank you for your understanding. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN - a suggestion

Rickyrab, I agree with your suggestion about GFDL compliance - and I've made one I'm prepared to follow through with - see the MFD for more details. --SunStar Net ^talk 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you intend to remove the comment immediately below my vote on the DRV, or did it disappear? Just thought I'd give you a heads up. If you know about it, no worries. Orderinchaos 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine :) Just couldn't be bothered checking the diffs to see who had removed it. Have a good evening :) Orderinchaos 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please refrain from canvassing for support in your deletion review [1]. It's a highly frowned-upon action. In addition, you've already made 2 reversions to the main BJAODN page in less than 24 hours. One more and you'll be blocked for breaking WP:3RR. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above is from one of a number of Wikipedia editors which scribbled in WP:Deletion review with anti-BJAODN sentiment within 10 min of one another. It may or may not be canvassing. I am not saying canvassing is involved there (if it is, it probably occurred off-Wikipedia), but the reaction and sides taken strike me as suspicious. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... demon hasn't commented on the DRV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Please stop with the reverting nonsense on BJAODN. The section you provided doesn't belong on the main page like that. Another thing, stop giving Jeffery an ultimatum. [2] — Moe ε 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

When your revert warring, it doesn't look like much of a request to be honest. — Moe ε 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to make a real request you wouldn't go to his talk page and say "not funny. I'm going to DRV" and then proceed to revert war. No, you didn't ask in a civil manner for the history of the pages. — Moe ε 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I accept you're apology for revert warring and I think it was very professional of you for doing so. Unfortuantly, I cannot access the histories of the pages. I would e-mail Jeffrey and talk it out with him since he is the one who deleted the material. — Moe ε 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: BJAODN deletion

No. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, no. Please do not ask me again. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If Template:Holdon works, don't use Template:Hangon. 68.101.123.219 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Please stop forum shopping for someone to undelete those pages. The fact that you have multiple messages from other editors about this, and that you are still trying to get them undeleted, suggests that you are being purposefully disruptive. Picaroon (Talk) 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am forum shopping because I am asking for information. If I don't forum shop, how else am I supposed to find it? I am attempting to do this through proper channels, but it becomes difficult when there is a lot of restrictiveness built into etiquette rules. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rickyrab - are you saying here that you will not revoke the GFDL lic? (as if you can. You clicked "save"). Revoking your license is pretty serious - Alison ☺ 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I clicked "save"; what does that have to do with anything? No, I am not revoking that license or any such thing. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying here that I will not revoke the license. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I want access to the edits that I made to the deleted BJAODN subpages, and their edit histories. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) This does not mean a revocation of the license or any such thing; Wikipedia policy points out that one may take one's own work off-Wikipedia and do what he or she likes with his or her own work, so long as the Wikipedia works themselves stay under GDFL. At least that's what I think the policy says. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rickyrab, I'm not interested in your BJAODN content - I'm just reviewing your block. I've decided to reduce it back to 48 hours less 6 served on the strength of your comments re. GFDL above. Note my 'clicked save' comment refers to your assent of the boilerplate GFDL consent you agreed to when you edit a page. It's there beside the textbox. Either way, block has been reduced. - Alison ☺ 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A Second Chance for the Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, Please: They Deserve a Chance for Legitimacy via Correction, If They are Copyright Violations That Need to Be Corrected

Okay. I think that the issue surrounding WP:BJAODN is not necessarily the GDFL violations, but the fact that they're on Wikipedia and are more suitable for Uncyclopedia or other wikis, due to their status as humor. Nonetheless, the deleting admins struck down the BJAODN pages based on GDFL without giving them a fair chance at correcting the errors, merely stating that they are "double copyvios". I feel this is wrong, that they should be giving the old jokes and crap a chance at legality.

I am not sure if Wikipedia started out as a GDFL encyclopedia, or if GDFL was adopted at some point along the way. If GDFL was adopted at some point, what does it mean for pre-GDFL bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? What licensing do they fall under? I think that deleting the BJAODN in question was a case of being lazy rather than a case of actively sorting through the BJAODN and trying to give them a proper home, under proper attribution. Furthermore, I made several edits that contribute to the BJAODN, and I'd like to be able to review them, find where they came from, give proper attribution, and set them in a proper area of whatever sort. (If Uncyclopedia isn't that home, then I'm willing to set up a GFDL-compliant archive of BJAODN.) — Rickyrab | Talk 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has always been GFDL, so there's no pre-GFDL anything. And I'm pretty sure that the copyright violation is the main issue, otherwise WP:BJAODUE would be deleted as well. And this 'not giving them a chance' stuff is pretty standard; copyright violations are always speedily deleted without giving the original writer a chance to rewrite. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has always been GFDL in theory, including the BJAODN section, it has failed to completely be so in PRACTICE. I am unsure of the effect on copyright status of the failure for SIX YEARS to enforce any semblance of GDFL on BJAODN. This, too, was a "standard practice". Furthermore, speedy deletions as a standard practice is unethical as they deny the author of a work a warning in advance of deletion so he or she could revise the work to fit GDFL without saving his or her work on his or her personal computer every time he or she edits. The fair and ethical approach is to always give some warning in advance of deletion, even if there is a speedy involved. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case we dont know who the author is because there is no attribution. How can we ask the person who authored the text if we dont know who authored it? -M^ask? 17:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the vandalism on BJAODN was done by IP's who never visit the site again. Im not talking about who moved it into BJAODN, but who wrote the text in the first place. Thats the author who requires credit by the GFDL. -M^ask? 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN does not contain the original edits. The text is copied, breaking the attribution chain. And it's trolling easily in the style and venue you brought it up in. You were allready blocked for this once. The proper course is to take it up with the person who deleted it, or failing that, start a WP:RfC or WP:RfAr. This has been done, wheel-warred over briefly for some more stupid drama, and is now dieing. Just let it die quietly, or challenge it at a venue I previously stated.-M^ask?

Towards An Improvement of GNU, Wikipedia Version

I am mulling creating a task force on ways to improve both BJAODN and Wikipedia's GFDL license, in the aftermath of this disaster. Moreover, the extent of copyright violations in the deleted subpages of BJAODN is unclear. While there is a wholesale lack of citations in the subpages (thank you, web crawlers, for having cached versions of most BJAODN pages, so I could confirm this), it is nonetheless unclear how much of the actual content of the jokes is an actual copyvio, and not new content or transformed content. Because of that, some BJAODN were almost certainly improperly deleted as something they were not (copyvios), and no research whatsoever was done to see who copied what from whom and to set the record straight as to who made the original edits. While it would be a ton of work to unearth all the sources of all of the BJAODN, one could conceivably release some of the better ones upon looking up the source material and the sources - and, of course, a bit of tweaking if copyrights still pose an issue after the sources are found and noted (replacing a fair-use photo with a free image, for example). The GFDL needs a mechanism to allow people to review violating works in order to render them non-violating, and that is among the reasons why I feel GDFL should be tinkered with (thus creating a GFDL that is more useful for Wikis). — Rickyrab | Talk 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

After thinking, I have found another problem with Wikipedia's GNU license. If the BJAODN pages that got deleted are rife with "double copyright violations", as one of the admins claims, this raises serious implications for many other Wikipedia articles, pages, entries, etc. Some pages have content that has been rendered via cutting and pasting, because that is a relatively easy way of spreading information from one document to another. As I recall, Wikipedia has more than a million articles. There could be cut-and-paste related "double copyright violations" in hundreds of thousands of them. Moreover, there is a serious flaw in GNU when using cut-and-paste or copy-and-paste techniques to do ANYTHING, because if one cuts and pastes information, under a strict interpretation of GNU, one would have to look up logs that could run thousands of edits deep to find out where a particular edit that one wants to quote or use came from. That is a lot of work. So is, unfortunately, trying to fish out edits which are copyvios in Wikipedia proper. Shall we delete the rest of Wikipedia and start over then? And why haven't I gotten a response on some of the trickier questions? Can it be that admins don't really know how to answer them?

In urban planning and zoning laws, when there is a non-compliant use that the developer of a property wants, he or she can ask for a "variance", or permission for a use that a law would otherwise forbid, and the municipal board can decide whether or not to grant such a use variance. From the same quarter of law comes the concept of "grandfathering", in which a noncompliant use that already existed beforehand can be grandfathered into current use, provided that new uses of that kind don't arise. From the area of Jewish law comes the concept of eruv, which allows an observant Jew to carry things around outside the house in a given area on Shabbat by declaring a limited outside area to be, effectively, part of one's residence. Likewise, the same sort of thinking could be applied to copyright policy: because GFDL was not enforced in the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense section, that use might be "grandfathered" as a habitual policy specifically for use in the BJAODN section, and not any other. Because cutting or copying and pasting is very difficult under GNU, another "variance", or statement allowing such a variance, would allow one to copy and paste material easily within Wikipedia, but not necessarily outside of Wikipedia (copies and pastes already included in Wikipedia articles notwithstanding). Such a statement would have to be worded very carefully, but it could be done. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, what I would like to see is software that allows one to easily see who made any given edit to a Wikipedia article, upon highlighting or marking for copying, and which copies and pastes editor information concerning a given edit into the history sections of the page into which that information gets pasted. I'd like to know if there is any way that could be done. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See bugzilla:639; the 'who contributed which text' feature has been requested, but is proving hard to implement, and would be basically impossible to implement in the case of detecting copy-and-paste. As for copy-and-paste, if information has been copied-and-pasted then either it is removed (WP:CSD#G12), or if it was a cut-and-paste within Wikipedia an administrator moves the history from one article to another ({{db-histmerge}}). Copying and pasting doesn't happen as much as you might think, due to the existence of the 'move' feature; when it does happen, it's compulsory for copyright reasons to mention the source, for instance in the edit summary, and as the most common reason for this would be duplicating templates or other technical pages, most users realise they have to do this. The problem with BJAODN is that it would take too long to track down the original author of the text (the job would mostly have to be done by administrators, because most of the pages have since been deleted), to retrieve a collection of mostly but not entirely unfunny material. --ais523 14:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The allowance for quoting a few words or a sentence from wikipedia is fair use, the same way as quoting words from any other source (normally all-rights-reserved, the default copyright status) is allowed. Quoting words from Wikipedia on Wikipedia itself might be more of a problem. The GFDL doesn't allow for any of that sort of thing, but there's a legal limit to what actions a licence can prevent. I'm not at all sure about the details, though, so for further information I'd advise you to contact someone who knows more about copyright. --ais523 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How would an edit within Wikipedia that copies from, or quotes, Wikipedia material be any less allowable than a citation of Wikipedia material outside of Wikipedia?[3] I'm not sure that policies for fair-use text on Wikipedia (as opposed to fair-use images) have ever been worked out, so policy is silent on the matter and that's what leaves the ambiguity in this case. Cut-and-pasted text can still be used quite easily outside article-space, at least (this edit demonstrates one way), but probably shouldn't be used in articles in most cases (WP:GFDL, WP:V, etc.) A broader discussion of this would probably be helpful to clarify what the situation actually is. --ais523 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with BJAODN was that it was page after page of un-attributed quotes, rather than the small amount that fair use would normally allow, so it may have been a copyright violation actually legally (remember, it's the editors that hold the copyright, not Wikipedia itself or the foundation) rather than just in the eyes of policy. I'm not sure if the fact it was copyvio is obvious, though (it took a while before anyone speedied it!) Again, I'd advise you to seek broader input to this, as I'm not a lawyer and I'm not clear on some of the issues myself. --ais523 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant page history for the previous two sections (more or less)

(cur) (last) 16:37, 2 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (36,648 bytes) (new comments, I'd like admins to read them)

(cur) (last) 06:15, 2 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (33,361 bytes) (→A Second Chance for the Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, Please: They Deserve a Chance for Legitimacy via Correction, If They are Copyright Violations That Need to Be Corrected)

(cur) (last) 06:02, 2 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (31,899 bytes) (→A Second Chance for the Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, Please: They Deserve a Chance for Legitimacy via Correction, If They are Copyright Violations That Need to Be Corrected)

(cur) (last) 17:05, 1 June 2007 Veinor (Talk | contribs) (31,117 bytes) (→A Second Chance for the Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, Please: They Deserve a Chance for Legitimacy via Correction, If They are Copyright Violations That Need to Be Corrected - repl)

(cur) (last) 06:32, 1 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (30,392 bytes)

(cur) (last) 06:28, 1 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (30,389 bytes)

(cur) (last) 06:26, 1 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (30,385 bytes)

(cur) (last) 06:24, 1 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (30,190 bytes)

you may be interested in GNU Simpler Free Documentation License.Geni 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits that went into making and correcting the above list here (except for the most recent edit)

(cur) (last) 16:50, 2 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (37,976 bytes) (→The relevant page history for the previous two sections (more or less) - Gadfium did the following section.)

(cur) (last) 16:49, 2 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (38,067 bytes) (→The relevant page history for the previous two sections (more or less) - Even here, how does one copy and paste the links?)

(cur) (last) 16:48, 2 June 2007 Rickyrab (Talk | contribs) (38,060 bytes) (→Towards An Improvement of GNU, Wikipedia Version)

Unblock request via email

I have received a request for unblock by email from Rickyrab relating to Zscout's block. It appears this has already been resolved by Alison.-gadfium 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

as you know, i am among the people who have been the most critical of JOG's action, almost to the point of considering filing a RfC leading to desysop, but I think there is no way of intelligently discussing these together. Please refile them separately,and not necessarily all at once. Start with the hasidic nonsense by itself, as it has a different rationale. Otherwise we will have a madhouse.

It is only fair to tell you I think these pages a disgrace, and I think them much better removd from WP as unsuitable for encyclopedic purposes. I think however that no WPedian should tolerate the sort of administrative abuse that occurred.

If you merely want the text meanwhile, I will email it to you immediately. Email me from my user page so I have a return address. DGG 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Which comes first--I advise strongly against starting any actions about editors while we are still discussing the pages; I think in general WP should discuss the pages, and that is hard enough. If the pages decisions come out in a way that clearly shows the nomination to be wrong, then the personal action may be appropriate. But it might not come out that way, and then it would fail. I think it unprofitable and potentially damaging to complain and lose, and I prefer to fight one front at a time. I have no desire at all to be vindictive, but to decisively terminate a trend that could destroy WP.

I commented on the DelRev p. about the practical necessity of dividing the DR, I do not what to contribute to a chaos. DGG 00:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a good laugh last night seeing some of the usually very deletionist editors who had contributed to the page about WP/EB, but getting yourself blocked at Unencyclopedia is the best joke of all. I think WR is going to have some fun at the whole BJOADN series--too bad I can't safely contribute. DGG 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC) That's the one on takeover of WP by the Encyclopedia Brittanica,19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN attributions

I see that you're doing some work on BJAODN attributions. I have two things to point out though. One, you shouldn't be putting wikilinks in the section titles. This is directly in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I know sometimes we get lazy and allow the use of internal wikilinks around the whole section title, but we really should never be putting external links into section headers, which diff links are. It makes the wikisource of the page a terrible mess, and screws up the Table of Contents, because it puts numbers in square brackets after the entries in the ToC. You should put the difflinks on the first line of text beneath the section header.

And secondly, I see you came across some sections that simply could not be attributed. In these cases, the sections must be deleted, not left with a note that "further investigation is needed". The only way to find this stuff when we don't even know the original name of the deleted joke article is if a developer ran a search against the database's deleted pages table, but of course that's never going to happen, not for BJAODN. Since this further investigation is never going to happen, the section needs to removed as unattributed. Yes, this will result in BJAODN being trimmed down somewhat, but that's necessary for GFDL compliance reasons. When these pages were first compiled nobody was thinking about the GFDL, and now, it's inevitable that not all of their content will be able to be saved. Thank you for understanding. --Cyde Weys 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, this is about attributing the edit to its proper author, nothing more, and nothing less. Some of your attribution links are really just going back to redlinked pages that have been deleted. This doesn't fulfill the proper attribution requirements, because readers cannot see the deleted revisions, and thus, who wrote it. Only admins can retrieve this information. So you need to look at the deleted revisions yourself and list the author(s) under the section header on BJAODN. Also, keep in mind the permanence of the deleted revisions table is not guaranteed. It's been emptied before (for example, you can't find any deleted revisions from more than four years ago), and it is very likely to be emptied again. We need to keep track of the authors of the works in a permanent manner, which precludes merely relying on the deleted revisions table. The author(s) must be labeled explicitly. --Cyde Weys 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Attribution needed tag for category discussions at WP:BJAODN

I saw that, in the currently-active WP:BJAODN page, you tagged the "Silly category round-up for June 2007" with an "attribution needed" tag. The links in that section lead to the discussions on those categories. Surely, that is sufficient for attribution, isn't it (or are the tags supposed to mean something else)? Dr. Submillimeter 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I received your message, I had already removed the tag and left an explicit note on the links leading to WP:CFD. Hopefully this will be sufficient for avoiding confusion in the future. (Also, see User:Dr. Submillimeter/Humorous categories.)Dr. Submillimeter 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Rickyrab: 19% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 82 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1967 Newark riots merger

You placed a {{mergewith}} template on 1967 Newark riots & 1967 Plainfield riots. Could you state your case on the talk page of one of these articles? The merge won't happen unless you can get people to agree with you. I, personally, think separate articles are best but I'm willing to be persuaded. --D. Monack | talk 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the two riots are distinct enough to deserve separate articles. Both articles are beyond stub length. If you don't mind, I'm going to remove the merger templates. --D. Monack | talk 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia, non-mainspace. It was speedy deleted 09:30, 14 August 2007 and now that deletion is being discussed here at deletion review. You significantly contributed to that page. Please consider participating in the discussion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of current market news into Stock

I'm sure your intentions were good, but that was a highly inappropriate insertion; it's been reverted by another editor already. --Orange Mike 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

I hope you know that if you intend on creating anything in spite of an MFD deletion which was closed to not recreate anything similar, I will place it on MFD. — Moe ε 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, 'personal' sub-pages must adhere to the same guidelines of Wikipedia as every other page. If that page starts with the adding content to restart a BJAODN here on Wikipedia, I will send it to MFD. I don't care how much of a bad taste it is. And stop linkspamming your site as well. — Moe ε 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The MFD closed as speedy delete. — Moe ε 08:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Feh, I'm creating something similar off-site and linking to it from here. Big deal. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your tactics around BJAODN

As I am one of the people who was against BJAODN being deleted, please understand that the following is intended to be constructive criticism: There is an old saying: "You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Your tactic of apparently seeking to be as disruptive as possible in your attempts to get BJAODN reinstated are not only not helping, but are making things worse. I ask that you please instead try to follow the approach of discussion towards consensus. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit to goofing. I'm not going to disrupt Wikipedia again. I am, however, going to revamp or move stuff not really wanted on Wikipedia off my personal pages here and onto Rickyrabpedia instead. I am also going to improve my taste, as I am no longer an undergrad (or even a planning master's) student anymore; I am a Ph.D. student, and thus my user page on Wikipedia is going to have a do-over shortly after my block ends. hopefully the Google crawlers will pick it up quickly. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for a week for repeated disruptive behavior related to the deletion of BJAODN. Your actions are clearly designed to prevent a consensus from forming in favor of inflammatory disagreement. This is unacceptable, and I have blocked you for a week so that an actual, mature consensus can form. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to this block and the resulting consensus, I have decided to create a personal BJAODN on a personal wiki instead. (This page is not in existence, but shall be created. It shall also be linked to my personal page here, which shall be revamped in order to present a good public face - it is one of the highest pages seen when one Googles "Rickyrab".) — Rickyrab | Talk 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is now in existence. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Phil Sandifer's accusation of "clearly designing actions to prevent a consensus from forming in favor of inflammatory disagreement", though. This was not what the actions were designed to do; they weren't "designed to" do anything except show that I disagreed with some other people as to how to act about BJAODN. I still disagree, and some might consider my actions a violation of WP:POINT, but it was not intended to be disruptive or inflammatory. I am not going to press the point anymore, because I don't want to risk any further potential damage to my integrity or reputation. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:47, 5 September 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Reason for block has already occurred and been dealt with; block is no longer needed.

Decline reason:

Given your prior history of BJAODN-related rabble-rousing, I think this block is still warranted. — krimpet⟲ 05:05, 5 September 2007 (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.

Fine, I'll wait until this block expires, which won't be that long anyhow. I think it's no longer warranted, and I need to change my user page. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I intend to stop BJAODN-related rabble rousing. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD U1

Hi Rickyrab,

Just so that you know for future reference, you can request speedy deletion of subpages in your own user space (but not user talk, generally) by tagging them with {{db-userreq}}. — TKD::Talk 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)