Welcome!

Hello, Tuscantreat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

posting that jimmy has put weight on - a week block really? (Personal attacks or harassment) - for this comment - [1]

Decline reason:

As it happens, I would have blocked you indefinitely on the grounds it seems you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In this context, I am declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (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.

Your other comments also raise concern [2]. We are not here to comment on other users. And you added it twice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the points Tuscantreat was making were completely valid - the repeated insertion of content that was being given undue weight and with a lack of an edit summary. And Drmies [3] agreed with the undue weight point. PhilKnight's not here to build an encyclopedia assertion is not there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week for advising Jimmy Wales that he is fat, looks unhealthy, and needs to do something about it! And almost blocked forever!! Yes the comment had nothing to do with any Wikipedia article, but Wales's talk page is full of off-topic stuff that has nothing to do with specific Wikipedia articles, and often nothing even to do with Wikipedia. The threat to give an indefinite block is completely over the top and is just the sort of thing that reinforces every bad opinion about Wikipedia that is out there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob! This was you? You had to go fuck around in that Meir Kahane article and call me out on my talk page, all the time knowing you're wrong? Come on now--with friends like you, who needs enemies? And now you got CU-blocked, so this party is going to be over pretty soon. What a shame. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Drmies - I was not wrong, you were wrong on the Meir Kahane biography and as I said I appreciated you returning to make a beneficial edit to it. I don't care about being cu blocked at all, I no longer respect my community ban - I have respected it long enough, the community is opinionated and unable to show any compassion or common sense due to biased camp opinionated users. I served enough punishment and the community should have allowed me to return to beneficial contributions but it failed to do so - enuf is enuf - I will edit when I want now. Tuscantreat (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, good luck to you. At the very least you could have treated me with some respect: I have stuck my hand in the fire for you more than once, and you know it. You know I'm not a cop, I'm just an editor and an admin, and I'm not going to hunt your socks down, but a community ban is what it is. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Drmies - You reverted a awful biased version of that article and then protected it - that is what it is - and I would call anyone out on that - friend or not - Tuscantreat (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm talking about tone, Rob. I don't mind disagreement. Besides, that's a huge exaggeration. You could have made my edit too, respectfully and with a decent explanation, even while socking. Bye bye til the next time, Drmies (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Drmies - I would never have made your edit, never ever, it was so biased and needed correction, which you gladly did when it was pointed out to you - as regards tone - yes, I am angry now and hurt at my extended unforgiving and unsympathetic treatment from this site, so my tone reflects that I imagine. - Tuscantreat (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
logging out - Tuscantreat (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Wow, what an unpleasant exchange just above. Given the blatantly hostile and unrepentant nature of this community-banned editor, who openly vows to keep creating sock puppets, is there any reason not to include him on the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse? Jus da fax 04:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]