User talk:Antilochus

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Barnes & Noble. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

In an attempt to demonstrate to my students how quickly the editorial volunteers are with correcting faulty information on Wikipedia, and thus proving a point that it is a valuable and truthful source of information, I made a cheeky edit and even noted that it was an educational effort. The zealous volunteer who reverted the edit banned me despite my comment on the intent of the edit.

Decline reason:

If I rob a bank to prove how effective the police are at catching bank robbers, I very much doubt a judge is going to take my motive into consideration when sending me down. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:00, 14 December 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The unblock request response was met with a non-sequitir reasoning in which the playful edit of a page demonstrating the integrity of the reliability of Wikipedia’s editors was compared to the straw man argument of robbing a bank. The two actions are not comparable as the nature of the two actions do not carry anywhere near the same weight. Antilochus (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your experiment was successful. Congratulations; instead of experimenting, you could have asked and shown the answer to your children. You can now also explain to your children about how actions have consequences. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2022 (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.

When making a request, do not place your explanation outside of the request template, overwrite the "your reason here" with your reason. You are blocked, not banned. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I completely understand the need to protect Wikipedia from vandalism. The biggest issue here is such a heavy handed consequence for such a minor incident of vandalism. Being blocked indefinitely does not seem to be warranted for a single incident of vandalism 5 years ago.

Decline reason:

You've demonstrated no reason to believe you understand your actions were inappropriate. If you think it appropriate to deliberately harm a project to prove a WP:POINT, what benefit is there to unblocking you? Perhaps you don't think it appropriate to deliberately vandalise projects others work hard on, but you certainly haven't given us any reason to think that. Instead, you seem to be just defending your poor decision. Yamla (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Correct, I am attempting to regain the ability to edit Wikipedia after being blocked for 5 years. I gladly accepted the punishment when it happened, but after 5 years it seems as though the greater mission of Wikipedia would be aligned with restoring my account so I can be an active contributing member of the community. My original vandalism was extremely minor “saying that people could see dinosaur like created in Lake Michigan” to show how quickly vandalism of that nature is dealt with in an attempt to demonstrate to students that the community here does an excellent job of ensuring the information here is monitored closely and can be trusted, an issue that Wikipedia has always struggled with in Academia. I am not defending my actions, merely requesting that my indefinite block be removed as the punishment does NOT seem to fit the crime here, so to speak.

Decline reason:

I see a lot of justifications for what you did and no understanding that it was wrong, just attempts to minimize blame. A successful unblock request honestly and productively addresses your past behavior and describes how you will assist the encyclopedia project henceforth. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2022 (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.

We know that Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The sources should be examined. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to end and prevent disruption. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Forever Books.jpg[edit]

The file File:Forever Books.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]