User talk:Velten

All edits by users banned from this page will be reverted as soon as noticed

For EM

I think they've established that it's a library. Velten 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

With the greatest respect for Geogre, that seemed to be an educated guess more than anything. Regardless, you're now claiming you're editing from a school library, while on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration you said you are editing from a reference library. [1] Extraordinary Machine 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a reference library. I never said that they've established it's a school library; those are their own assumptions which they've chatted about offline. I never claimed that I edited from a school library. The link is there to clearly prove what some users have acknowledged, and for some reason, they seem to think this is a school library. But no, it's a reference library, which I've touted as far back as January. I'm sure that was a sincere guess. Velten 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on request for unblock

EE/Velten has a long history of parachuting into articles barely days after I have edited them; see this message I left at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, as well as [2]. Velten, that we both edit in the same (very broad) subject area does absolutely nothing to explain your strange habit of parachuting into articles barely days after I have edited them, particularly as several of your "stalking" edits were related to content within my own userspace. It doesn't matter what edits you are doing to Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album); you still wouldn't be regularly editing them if I hadn't started doing so myself. You also have a history of harassing editors such as Bishonen and Giano, none of whom edit pop music articles.

I've given the reasons for my block; it's not "making up excuses" if you have clearly disrupted a page after being told many times not to. Removing old AFD notices has the exact same effect as editing or removing other people's comments, which you were told many times not to do. I am not "tampering with" any discussion and I do not appreciate being accused of doing so. Extraordinary Machine 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• To be bluntly honest, I don't quite give a damn about what you do and don't appreciate.

1. I made significant edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) long before you did; in the first article I simply restored information that was removed by an IP address user; I added that information in mid-July, long before you started editing that article.
2. For Promiscuous (song), I did reformat the charts, which I had done here, here, here, here ... (the list goes on) that day.
3. Removing old AFD notices has the exact same effect as editing or removing other people's comments, which you were told many times not to do — that's not part of the ArbCom ruling. I explained clearly here that I removed the template because the AFD was unusual, was speedily removed, and the nominator was eventually ostricized for his/her questionable conduct. You stated that you considered it disruption. Basically, you're telling me that part of the block was initiated because you felt it was inappropriate; that's ridiculous. Personally, I did not consider it disruption because it was (as I stated) confusing. Those are two separate opinions and you did not bother to discuss it with me, instead assuming your view and blocking me. That's incredibly irresponsible.
4. I request that Extraordinary Machine have his sysop abilities formally disabled per misconduct. This block was initiated in bad faith and I'm suspecting that it was simply to rid of me for another period of time; if this continues, essentially I'll be blocked for lengthier periods of time because EM will see something that he considers outrageous, even though it won't be. I also request that he be banished from editing on my talk page.

Velten 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty tired of being blocked when there's an important ongoing discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia. Seems somewhat suspicious to me. Velten 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I back you on having EM getting his admin revoked, it's very obvious he abuses his powers. --Thankyoubaby 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why has nobody responded to this ridiculous block yet? I am concerned about this. Velten 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else from the CAT:RFU team has reviewed your block, I suggest that you contact an Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member directly to review your most recent block. I have a feeling that most of us block reviewers including myself do not wish to involve ourselves in a complex matter with a long history that appears to be an ArbCom matter only. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed it. This gives every appearance of gaming the system. Velten is engaging in behaviour she knows without any question at all is both disruptive and forbidden, and it really is about time she learned better. Last time this was discussed in the ArbCom ruling clarifications section the clarification was unequivocal support for a block. Guy 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Guy didn't review my block because all those edits and links I've provided aren't disruptive or forbidden; adding content on Wikipedia is forbidden? You're feeding garbage to me. As the user above you stated, you're simply not shortening my block because you don't want to get involved with the complexity. It looks like I'm going to unblock this account myself. Velten 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could I get a review from someone who is willing to get involved with the complexity? Velten 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm aware that Thatcher131 asked for the block to be shortened to an appropriate amount of time, but nothing's happened. I'm curious to know if other discussions rose in the process? Velten 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pitiful Bish

Do you really think you can keep me out? I've already begun editing since I removed the block on this account. The only problem is that the edits won't be visible until the Wikipedia-enforced ban is lifted, because our unblock-material cannot disable the original initiator's action. After the block expires and I turn on this computer, all the edits will go through, and at this rate it looks like it's gonna be about thirty, thus far. Velten 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)