User talk:Mccready

It doesn't look PROD-worthy so I removed the tag, but it is too embryonic (typos, formatting) to be an article; you might want to polish it up in user space and then create the article. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Try Googling, Radiofan. Definitely notable. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good word selection (re: 'various'). I thought it needed something non-specific that suggests non-random needle location, and 'various' seems to do that well. (I also liked your removal of the tautology fine 'filiform'). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to be able to contribute after an absence.Kevin McCready (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that you are on a topic ban ...from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed [2] [3]. Can you please point me to a diff that has removed that topic ban? I ask this in relation to your recent edits at Acupuncture and would appreciate your return as soon as you can. With thanks.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember some discussion on this - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Fresh_Admin_Eyes. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a good link reminder Kevin. In such case McCready will you please return here with your intentions before editing elsewhere at the 'pedia?--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like this reviewed properly. The "ban" was put in place my an admin turning a blocking discussion into a banning discussion and then deciding the case his/her way despite heaps of evidence to the contrary view. Even Vassyana said my case was a battleground. I was told the ban was ended in May, I was later told it was extended. I was later told this that and the other. It has been a case of admins who have not been willing to look at my history and my edits. Even the good admins have not looked completely at the history of this long and complex case. It has typified some of the problems in wikipedia. Let's think about the project and the big picture. You yourself have acknowledged that I am a good editor if my memory serves correctly. The "ban" was placed without hearing my side and by an admin who then went on holidays. I was always told the "ban" could be reviewed properly and now I ask that this be done. Or rather, as I have always said, morph the bloody thing into a probation. We have all wasted far too much time on this while the project suffers. Please also note that my edit was endorsed and I was congratulated for it. What do you want here, a good editor or not? Kevin McCready (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed some of this history and note I was topic banned while BLOCKED. I could not defend myself. The topic ban was decided, as far as I can gather, to teach me a lesson. I was guilty of the aggravated crime of canvassing - a crime I had no idea of at the time. Certain admins, because they knew about canvassing and expected me to know also, virtually accused me of being a liar. How good is that? What sort of ad is that for sensible wikipedia behaviour? Can I stress again that even my detractors acknowlege I am a good editor. And you only have to look at the evidence on this talkpage to see this is beyond doubt. The ball is in your court. Make a contribution to the project by morphing this sad history into an acupuncture probabtion. Kevin McCready (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that this is not a useful place to discuss the merits of your topic ban, which I think would need a wider audience to overturn. Perhaps you could make a request to the arbitration committee? Kevin (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be quicker to ask Scientizzle to withdraw the decision he made without my input and against the views of other wikipedians? Kevin McCready (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you feel that the matter has not been reviewed properly by the various admins who have looked into it, hence my suggestion that ARBCOM look into it. Or you could just ask Scientizzle yourself. Kevin (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He/she has a note on his/her page that he/she is no longer active. Last edit was in September. If you are an admin your take might be a starting point. What is your opinion?Kevin McCready (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Fresh_Admin_Eyes. I have nothing really to add to that. Kevin (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "dramatic change in circumstances" you called for has been my record since the ban. Don't you agree? Kevin McCready (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the discussion has centered around clarifying the topic ban, and the justification for it. I'll need a while to assess whether or not I feel that your record shows improvement, and what an appropriate step forward might be. Kevin (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Above conversation noted - and I concur with Kevin. If you would like assistance with your assessment, or a second opinion Kevin please come to my talk page at any time. Until such time McCready your topic ban remains in place, thank you.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou VirtualSteve for concurring with kevin that he needs time to think about it. kevin, how long do you think it will take to assess the changes since the ban was put in place? Kevin McCready (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A week or two at least. My time is a little limited at the moment. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start, which angle are you coming from: that the original topic ban was flawed and should be orverturned, or that the ban was valid, but that your contributions since then show a change in behavior that justifies lifting the ban? I guess I need to know what your motivation is. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the outcome is the same it's immaterial. I don't think anyone benefits by wasting time on a disputed history. In any case, I have acknowledged my errors. My behaviour since the ban speaks for itself (see the talk on this page alone). My motivation, as always, is to build a better wikipedia, a resource for all humanity. Looking forward to your input. Kevin McCready (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look into your request for a review, and have a few thoughts. Firstly, it is my opinion that both the original topic ban and the subsequent indefinite extension were enacted as valid expressions of the wishes of the community. So that leaves me to determine if you have shown improved behavior that would allow for the ban to be lifted. I have decided only to review those contributions since the most recent review in March 09 so as not to drag any old issues up. Looking though these, I have 2 problems: first is that you have not made many contributions since then, which makes it difficult to determine if there has been a real change in behavior. Secondly, your recent edits to

I'm afraid you haven't addressed the issue properly. 1. I was not allowed to comment before the ban was enacted. Do you think I should have been banned without my input while I was blocked? Is that not akin to a kangaroo court? The discussion evolved into a ban because I was accused of canvassing did it not? 2. You will know that the decision was far from unanimous and therefore could not be said to reflect the views of the "community". There were admins who spoke against it. 3. I have apologised on many occasions. 4. You have not commented on the quality of my contributions - Did they contribute to the project or they did not? Do the comments on this page show that contribution or not? If you were assessing me as a new editor since that date what would your comments be? 5. Pls point to the acupuncture revert you refer to. There is no way they were of a similar nature to the ones which resulted in the ban. My edits before the ban were to insert scientific material into the article against the wishes of a self confessed acupuncturist who had lies on his website and who has since left the project. I am happy, as always, to provide evidence of this offline from wikipedia. I look forward to you helping me by answering these questions. Kevin McCready (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly you are yet again complaining of an improper review. As I am so obviously unqualified to make a review that meets your requirements, I will not be adding anything further. As I said, you are welcome to appeal to ARBCOM, or whichever other venue you choose. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to provide evidence for your position? You refuse to provide diffs when asked? The questions are not that hard. How long would it take you to provide an answer to them? You professed yourself willing to review the case and said it would take two weeks. I reminded you you had not responded and suddenly you are now withdrawing after a quick little barrage. It's nothing to do with my "requirements". It's a simple matter of answering simple questions. It's a simple matter of asking you to do what you said you would do. Now that you have made accusations without evidence I think it very reasonable to ask you to substantiate. In effect you are assuming bad faith despite my excellent behaviour and contributions to wikipedia as evidenced on this talk page. Over to you. Kevin McCready (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize this isn't a two-party discussion, right? Topic bans are community sanctions, an alternative to completely blocking you from editing. You don't really get a choice in the matter, beyond basically choosing whether to follow the consensus or not. I think Kevin gave you a fair suggestion, but there's now your discussion at ANI, so are you intending to discuss it with ARBCOM? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was fired this morning, so unfortunately your problem is now way down my list of priorities. Thanks for your ANI report though, it's always nice to know when my help has been appreciated. Kevin (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is there any reason why you do not wish to ask ARBCOM to clarify the situation about any possible edit sanctions you may be under? They'd be able to give you an answer. They'd certainly listen to what you told them. And you'd avoid the festering pit that is AN/I. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This matter should be very easy to clear up quickly with the application of a little logic and assumption of good faith. My conduct since "the community" banned me warrants this. I have taken up the offer above here. Indeed if some of those who have commented above and at AN/I are admins, it reflects poorly on wikipedia. Kevin McCready (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your request here. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 09:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read my words more carefully and play your hyperbole somewhere else. I am offering Kevin and not Kevin McCready a second opinion. Kevin was the admin who tried to support your request but who you then lambasted at ANI (that is the sour grapes I am referring to) and who you even took a somewhat cowardly dig at with regards his personal unfortunate circumstances. Kevin has my second opinion - it is "you are not ready for a topic ban adjustment". Indeed you need to stop with the tendentious replies and activities else you will receive a wider block than just a topic ban. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a request for arbitration. It was malformed, so I removed it. Please prepare your request and then follow the instructions as given on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration.--Atlan (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, please check again. You are required to add yourself as an involved party (and others involved, if any) and provide diffs to previous attempts to get your ban lifted. Also, you provided your statement in the section in which arbitrators accept or refuse your request. Please look at the request concerning the Philippines and use that as a template for yours. The request I removed is still in the history, if you need anything from it.--Atlan (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't file the request for you. There's a current request concerning the Philippines. All I can say is make your request look like that one. I don't mind correcting minor errors once you're done.--Atlan (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That history is correct. Your case is added to the subpage "Arbitration/Requests/Case", and then transcluded to "Arbitration/Requests". So your request won't show up in the history of the requests page. Arbitration is set up weird that way.--Atlan (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, admin Virtual Steve saw fit to remove this from his talkpage with an abusive edit summary and leaving the impression for the reader that I had not acknowledged my error. Here is the text he removed:

Yes I now see you were talking to Kevin the admin not to me. But when you and Kevin are asked to justify yourselves and give logical reasons for your opinions you claim I am being tendentious. Nice twist. You also assume wrongly that I take a cowardly dig. Nice insult. In fact I think I said I felt sorry that he had been fired. Once again you have proved your worth - wrong assumptions, refusal to discuss (block record in my last note here), dismissing other people with insults and now a threat. Well done. Great feeling you engender for the project. However, despite you, I will continue to make contributions because wikipedia is larger than what you represent. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Kevin McCready (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This was enough. I told you to drop, you didn't. Three ANI reports in a week concerning the fact that editors chose not to reconsider your topic ban. Sorry, that's enough disruption and drama for me. Only a week since I suspect that your case at ARBCOM should be decided by then. To any admins, if he is needed at ARBCOM, unblock him immediately so he can argue his case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ricky obviously didn't like the facts, despite inviting me to supply them. Will an uninvolved admin please unblock. Thanks Kevin McCready (talk) 2:30 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Blaming the admin is not a good way to request an unblock. -TNXMan 12:44, 8 December 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thankyou for the opportunity to again request unblocking. My argument is that the block is unfounded. Secondly, I will not pursue the matter of the bad behaviour of these particular admins again at AN/I (thus fulfilling the second leg of the guideline for unblocking). On the first ground. I don't consider that providing evidence when I am asked for it is disruptive. Ricky asked me for evidence and this is what I provided:

This is extraordinary. You admit that admins have reneged. Where I come from reneging on your word is a very serious matter. Evidence for the following is all available on my talkpage.

The simple test which admin Kevin said he would apply was whether or not my record since the ban for edit warring showed improvement. He then asked, paradoxically, whether I wanted my earlier history to be reviewed. I responded that what was important was my behaviour and contributions since the ban. And what do you know, he then purports to examine the lengthy history and, more amazingly, says he will only examine my contributions since March 2009, not my contributions since the ban was enacted, thus contradicting the terms he and I agreed to and, get this bit, his reason is that "he doesn't want to drag any old issues up" having just justified his decision that way anyway. Then, wonder of wonders, he says there are not enough edits to form a view. Funny that. Ignore a whole year's contributions and then say there is not enough evidence. He then claims some of my edits were reverted as POV and when asked to provide a diff comes out swinging and says I'm complaining that he hasn't done a proper review. Too right he hasn't.

Now Ricky, are you going to seriously tell me that Admin Kevin has conducted a proper review or are you going to abuse, threaten me and attempt to cower me? Would you review someone's contributions, ignore a whole year of them, and then claim there weren't enough to form an opinion? Kevin McCready (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin McCready (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behaviour on AN/I is enough for a block. Vexatious use of process distracts from the project, and detracts from proper use of process. Come back and make good edits after the week is up. Rich Farmbrough, 05:06, 9 December 2009 (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.

Rich, other editors on the thread acknowledged the bad behaviour of the admin. That admin has not been censured and has not even apologised to me. Indeed he has attacked me further. Please explain how my clarifying the history to Ricky when asked constitutes "vexatious use of process". Is it not the case that bad admin behaviour "distracts from the project"? Thank you Kevin McCready (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What part of "we don't censure and we're not going to demand an apology" did you not understand? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I'm not going to engage you any more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the thread on AN/I I saw a lot of cases where you picked on a minor word or phrase and used it to justify a substantial line a of argument. I felt that within a few paragraphs you would realise that this was not an appropriate methodolgy for AN/I. As the thread unfolded I saw that this appeared to be a pattern in your interaction, and before the end I was convinced that the conversation was not going to be productive. Further I was also convinced that you were unlikely to leave and that it was a massive waste of everyone's time (over four thousand people watch that page). For that reason I had decided to block you to allow you some cooling off time. I expected that you would issue a string of {{Unblock}}s and I really didn't want to get drawn in, but I was prepared to do it. (To give you some context it would have been the second block I had used against an established editor in nearly 5 years as an admin.) Come the next screen I saw that you had been blocked, and was glad that I didn't have to do it. So I came to check that you had been notified properly, and saw from the {{Unblock}}s that you appear not to understand the reason for your block.

You were blocked because you were causing disruption and drama.

To get an unblock you need to agree to stop that behaviour. Your second unblock request agrees to stop it in certain narrow way, but then continues to push the very points (and others) in the unblock request itself.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I would also suggest that you think carefully about your debating style to reduce the likely-hood of future blocks. The purpose of being here is to build the encyclopedia, not get bogged down in AN/I, ARB, blocks, bans, WP:CIVIL etc. If you are investigating a crime, conducting a court case, or looking at a scientific debate, or indeed in many other fields, looking for the "weak point" - the alibi that doesn't stack up, the phrase that undermines a witnesses credibility, the clause that invalidates a contract, the citation that is not from a peer reviewed journal - is a sound strategy. Where you are working on a cooperative enterprise it is less so.

Also think about other people's motivation - basically most of those mentioned I would imagine started out wanting to get you back to being a productive article editor (I assume you were) but ended up "just wanting it to stop". How did this happen?

When your block expires or is lifted you need to have a credible plan for your own purposes too. For example you could stick to editing those area you are allowed, you could leave WP, you could go to ARB. Unless you have that clarity there is a risk that you get into more conflict over things that need to be dealt with once and for all.

Good luck.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, I really do appreciate your sincerity. Believe me. I can feel in your words that you have the best interests of the project at heart. And I suspect you understand that I do too. But you have not quite understood the dynamic here. I am a committed wikipedian who has been shamefully bullied. Admins have promised to review my case and then reneged (Ricky himself acknowleges that). They have refused to engage in logical discussion. You have not addressed this issue. Ricky invited me to explain. I explained. Then he blocked me. it is patently obvious (see his deleted comments here) that he was itching to do so. Something is rotten, apart from legalise, when a young admin can be judge, jury and exectutioner. I hope you understand this. Ricky even said I would not be getting an apology, despite acknowledging it is due. The greater good of the project is an issue here if a cabal of admins can get away with this shameful behaviour. People of lesser determination would have abandoned the project by now. Is that not a detriment? And I might add that no one has been able to demonstrate that my contributions since the ban have not been beneficial to the project. Is it any wonder that wikipedia is bleeding? I look forward to your response because you strike me as a thoughtful person. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): The blocking admin noted that Mccready should be unblocked to allow participation in the pending ARBCOM case. I think that moving forward is the best thing to do here. talk) 23:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Request handled by: talk) 23:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I am not the blocking admin, but of course unblock if required to comment at Arbcom. Case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban. Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You really should think about providing evidence (if any) soon on your request or it will be rejected. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming. Please put your comments here and please remain on topic and polite. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Michio Kuga - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin, Your edit at

I disagree with your analysis of the "topic ban" and so do other editors. Kevin McCready (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there was never consensus to lift it. Even though some other editors may agree with you, WP operates on consensus, for better or worse. It's not a good idea to ignore the ban without it being formally lifted (see:

Wikipedia:AN#McCready_topic_ban --Middle 8 (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm here to build a better encyclopedia, not argue unproductively with fringe promoters. Since you only came out of wiki retirement, having announced in one of your incarnations you wanted to edit in another "expert" environment rather than wikipedia, to harass me may I respectfully suggest that you do not represent the views of the "community" as any objective person would agree. Have a nice day.Kevin McCready (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See you at

WP:AN. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Now is a great time to stop editing in defiance of the ban, which is still in place. Editing in this area while the ban is actively being discussed is really not wise. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --

I left a warning at AN which you blatantly ignored. This topic-ban is still in force and will remain so until it is formally revoked, which there is no consensus for doing. You don't just get to ignore it. Moreschi (talk) 15:54, 8 January 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).

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

---

Request reason:

In his obscene haste to block me for a warning which he posted on another page and then blocked me before I could see it, Guy Chapman's meatpuppet Moreschi did not even put the block message on my talkpage. Would an uninvolved admin be brave enough to review the discussion on AN and unblock me? Or at least review the timing of Moreschi's obscene haste and agree that I had no way of seeing it before he acted. Thanks Here is the timeline: :15:42 I post summary on AN :15.44 I post on Guy Chapman’s page :15:47 Moreschi expresses his views on AN, not having been in the discussion and posts “warning”. :15:47 I edit Chiropractic education :15:48 I edit Chiropractic education :15:49 I edit Chiropractic education :15:51 I edit Chiropractic education :15:51 I edit Chiropractic education,I am still editing Chiropractic education and haven’t seen Moreschi’s “warning” when at :15:54 Moreschi blocks me and in his obscene haste doesn’t bother to format the block properly

Decline reason:

I've reviewed the thread at

WP:AN, but I don't see consensus there that your topic ban has been lifted. In fact, I can't find anyone saying firmly that it should be lifted. Therefore, it would appear to still exist. Your comments in that thread indicate that you are aware that it exists. If you chose to violate it, knowing that it would lead to a block, I'm not sure why you are now requesting unblock. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:58, 8 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Here is what Moreschi emailed me:

"Shrug. Whether you saw the warning or not doesn't really matter. You had already announced your intention to violate the topic ban and then went and did just that. Why I bothered to warn you I don't really know, maybe it was those chocolate croissants I just ate. See you in 98.5 hours or so."

FisherQueen, I have ALWAYS said the "ban" was not a ban, if my language has not been clear I apologize. For the purposes of discussion I have of course said assuming that the ban exists then ... If you saw the thread you will see that some users argue the ban does not EXIST. Can't you read. If you saw the thread you will also see that there was support for me, some sat on fence and others want to keep the vendetta going.

Decline reason:

Your opinion that the ban is not a ban does not reduce its validity. It was originally imposed here, due to a a thread closed by Vassyana in April 2008, and extended to indefinite in this thread, closed by Scientizzle on 7 May, 2008. If you can find any more recent noticeboard thread that formally lifted the ban, point to it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 9 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

See discussion on AN and suggestion I particpate.Kevin McCready (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. The discussion about you at AN is very long. Any subsequent unblock request should contain a specific link or diff to any thread that you think is relevant to your block. (This is also in reply to your e-mail requesting to be unblocked.)  Sandstein  16:35, 10 January 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.

[5]. A. Fix the formatting, and B. clean up the content. Cleaning up the language would be a start, as well as controlling the finger pointing.--Tznkai (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, perhaps MBisanz has the more appropriate response.--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bramwell Seaton Bonsall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bramwell Seaton Bonsall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eastshire (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Viséan (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]