User talk:Harry Mudd

Link 04:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to James Randi and its talk page. I noticed, however, that you are signing your talk-page postings with a manually-crafted name and untimestamped date. As mentioned in the welcome message above (under "Additional tips"), the best way to sign a talk-page posting is by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which the wiki editor will automatically convert to your username (with a link to your user page) and a UTC date/timestamp (which marks the time unambiguously, very important for active discussions). You can also use 3 tildes for just your username, or 5 tildes for just the date/timestamp. But the 4-tilde system is by far the most common and most useful. This may sound unnecessary, but you might be surprised how often people will forge plain-text signatures and timestamps. Using the automatic system gives a much more secure feeling (although not infallible) that the poster is who they say they are, and that the posting time is accurate.

You can also customize this 4-tilde automatic signature in your preferences settings (the link at the top of all wiki pages, just to the right of "my talk"). In the user profile tab, the box marked "Nickname" is what will be displayed with your user page link. You can also create more sophisticated signatures, including custom links, if you also select "Raw signature". For example, my signature (as shown below) is generated with the following text in my "Nickname" box:

[[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]]

This provides (A) a user page link with my nickname "Jeff Q"; (B) a user talk-page link with the text "(talk)"; and (C) a non-breaking space so my signature won't be split between 2 lines. You can examine the raw text of many talk pages to see the incredible variety of these customizations as well. You can also get more information about this at Help:Preferences#Your nickname. I hope you find this information useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you. You ahve been blocked before for

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I hereby appeal against the blocking. I have learned from previous disputes. This time I did not let anger get the better of me. If you look at the history, you will see that the disruption came not from me but from two other editors, mostly Baseball Bugs, and to a lesser extent Steven J. Anderson. I posted a simple staement about James Randi. It was a factual statement, stated with NPOV. I was asked for a cite, and I gave it, providing an interview with Randi himself, in which he admits settling with Uri Geller. Faced with this, Steven J. Anderson deleted the entire section, and another section. Deleting this is clearly vandalism (blanking). All I did was to reverse his vandalism. Baseball Bugs has repeated the same act of vandalism, which I again reversed. Out of the two sections that were deleted, one contains an interview with Randi talking about a court case that he lost. The other contains an interview with Randi admitting that he never finished high school. The two editors deleted this because they are following their own agenda, removing anything that makes Randi look bad. The basic problem here is not that I am disrupting the discussion, its that I don't agree with their agenda. Another editor Madman2001 has objected to the deletions and reversed them. Once again Steven J. Anderson deleted the two sections. He ordered Madman2001 not to restore it. He is obviously not in the least bit interested in

Decline reason:

single-purpose account — Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 17 September 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.

The article Gift of a Useless Man has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN short story - unreferenced since 2009

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Dissident Aggressor 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]