User talk:Ajuk

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

Hello, Ajuk. You have new messages at Talk:M Shed.
Message added 11:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in editing without summaries, reverting edits that have been arrived at through consensus and other such practices, I shall report you for disruptive ediuts and you are likely to be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan is referring to this edit, where you removed all but one section of the page. I'll assume that wasn't intentional, but please be careful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as the editor who reported you to AIV because of that edit, I'll just say that I disagree with FB's assumption, since it matches up exactly with the behavior that induced a final warning given by Jezhotwells. Why did you do that to that page? Was it an accident?

SilverCityChristmasIsland 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

His subsequent edit confirms my suspicion; he was trying to change the section, and somehow deleted everything except the paragraph instead. However, I hadn't noticed the addition to that section was not accpetable. I'll look into his editing in more detail, a block may be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your editing history, I've blocked your account indefinitely. This is for the following reasons:

• No talk page edits at all, despite large numbers of people disagreeing with many of your edits
• Long term problematic editing, as shown by the very large number of warnings above
• Most recently, introducing an edit with NPOV and BLP violations after a final warning by Jezhotwells

I'll include an "official" block notice below. But note that before requesting an unblock, you need to be able to convince an admin that these problems are not going to resume. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, of course the Edit where I removed most of the content from the AV page was a mistake.AJUK^Talk!! 00:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that edit, you said of David Cameron, "He also described AV as being 'incredibly complicated' despite having attended one of the best schools in the country." That is both a logical fallacy (would the vote be more or less complicated had the Prime Minister gone to a worse school?) as well as completely inappropriate bloviating, and you've been here long enough to know that you're not supposed to do that. When you call that edit "a mistake," are you admitting that putting that sort of stuff here is wrong and you'll refrain from doing it from now on?

SilverCityChristmasIsland 03:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, What I was saying was that if someone as intelligent as him is calling AV incredibly complicated is a bit dubious. If he'd said it about STV I would have been with him on that. AJUK^Talk!! 10:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You answered "yes" then answered a question nobody asked. Whether David Cameron is stupid, dishonest, both, or neither isn't the issue. You seem to have missed that.

I'll try one last time. You getting your several-years-old account unblocked likely depends on your input. Are you aware that your edit was, for lack of a better term, garbage? Are you aware that it was garbage because you injected your opinion and added a snotty, wholly irrelevant mention of Cameron's school, not because you inadvertently wiped out the page?

SilverCityChristmasIsland 17:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I see your point, it maybe obvious to me what he was saying was dishonest, but his intelligence and school background do not actually prove this. was the other part where I mention that he said that AV could have helped keep the Tories in power in 1997 and then show two citations that show the contrary would have happened relevant? Does Jezhotwells actually have any right to warn me, is he an admin? --AJUK^Talk!! 22:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

was the other part where I mention that he said that AV could have helped keep the Tories in power in 1997 and then show two citations that show the contrary would have happened relevant? The first link does not mention Cameron in regards to the 1997 discussion, so no,

WP:OBVIOUS

might overrule me. It feels like a coin flip.

Does Jezhotwells actually have any right to warn me Yep.

is he an admin? Nope. Neither am I.

SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Can I have my account unblocked, and I suggest you both spend more of your time dealing with real vandals. AJUK^Talk!! 12:00, 21 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Infinite is a bit harsh, my edit was not meant as vandalism. AJUK^Talk!! 10:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:26, 28 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I do understand why I was blocked but I don't understand why the offence was bad enough to require a block with a time limit let a lone infinite. And what is with infinite, so when I'm 60 the edit I did to the AV referendum in good faith 30+ years previously will still require that I am blocked? Please also note how much I have contributed, because no one else seems to.AJUK^Talk!! 22:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Look a little closer. That word is indefinite, not infinite. Not the same thing. You can be unblocked at anytime if you submit a convincing request in line with the response in your last declined unblock. Arguing about the time frame is not the path to getting unblocked. See

talk) 00:31, 4 September 2011 (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.

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajuk, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Widefox; talk 17:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't logged in, it wasn't another account. AJUK^Talk!! 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UB40 Present Arms In Dub CD Album

Today I have updated the page and hopefully explained to the idiots where the connection is between the 2 albums I have noticed in the history that you tried this before ages ago, but someone went ahead and amended your CORRECT edits. Hopefully my explanation and edits with some of your previous material...will now help those confused and generally seeking info and the idiots who dont know any better.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It's been a long time, I apologise for my previous behaviour, I would like to get back to making constructive edits under my own account. AJUK^Talk!! 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Although you were blocked in 2011, it looks like you engaged in block evasion as late as 2014 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajuk/Archive). That's more than two years ago, though. As such, this is not so much a decline from me as a request for me information. Before we consider unblocking you, could you be specific as to when you last edited any page other than this one, whether using another account or editing anonymously from an IP address? Have you used any other actual accounts? If unblocked, what sort of editing would you do? Yamla (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2016 (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.

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Ajuk. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Wаlker Bush listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George Wаlker Bush. Since you had some involvement with the George Wаlker Bush redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Administration's listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bush Administration's. Since you had some involvement with the Bush Administration's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Street Art2

Template:Street Art2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to request this account by unblocked since it has been 9 years. AJUK^Talk!! 14:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been socking as User:Theofficeprankster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Dead Nigger Storage

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

deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dead_nigger_storage

. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

talk) 21:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]