Realist01
Blocked edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. 
Realist01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As Jonathon Swift wrote One can always tell a genius as all the dunces are in confederacy against him
Decline reason:
First of all, it's "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." However, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, A man of genius is privileged only as far as he is genius. His dullness is as insupportable as any other dullness. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
Realist01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Impudent, feckless, dick. How dare you treat me thus.
Decline reason:
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.
Any appeal to have the block lifted would have to explain how this edit (which I only saw after I blocked for a paltry 31 hours) isn't that of a mere prankster meriting an indefinite block. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Propose that the block be lengthened based on completely off-toic personal attacks in the request to be unblocked. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I propose that you sir, are an unconscienable dickwad. Realist01 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to propose whatever you want. However, I think you should know that as per this page, at 16:41, the editor who declined your request for unblock also extended the period of the block from 31 hours to 72 hours and included your user talk page in the block area. So, you will be unable to add any more vulgarities to this page for a while. I very strongly urge you to consider making your behavior more acceptable upon your return, should you wish to be seen as anything other than an exclusively trouble-making account. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I propose that you sir, are an unconscienable dickwad. Realist01 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
"making wikipedia better" edit
If,as you state, your interests are to improve wikipedia, I suggest you review the material in the following template:
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your first edits were considered vandalism and have been reverted. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing.
However, if you are serious about contributing to wikipedia, you are still welcome to visit the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have. Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. As such, the wikipedia community hopes that you will not engage in further disruptive behavior, but will instead decide to become a contributing Wikipedian. Thank you.
You may have noticed the information on deletion linked to elsewhere as well. You should know, however, that should you propose for deletion any article which clearly meets requirements of WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, etc., that would probably qualify as disruptive editing as per WP:DE, and, considering the "quality" of your contributions to date, may be considered grounds for an indefinite block.
If you really are interested in improving the project, I would suggest that you find any of the articles of obvious importance and attempt to improve it. In the interests of helping you, of course, I will probably in the next day or two check on any subsequent contributions you make to help ensure that you don't, no doubt mistakenly, do something that you shouldn't do again. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikiipedia policies edit
You should know that another one of our policies are WP:PAPER, which basically says that an article on a small town in Guam can be as extensive and lengthy as an article on New York City, if there is sufficient sourcing for it. So, if you think you want any given article to be as short as a similar entry in another encyclopedia, that is not going to happen, provided the reliably sourced information to support it is there. You should also, of course, read and follow all the other policies and guidelines that have already been pointed out to you. I, like everyone one, would welcome the involvement of a reasonable, productive editor, and sincerely hope that you will become one. Should you continue in the manner which you have already displayed, however, I imagine that your conduct will be such that we will only need to deal with your conduct for a short time, as your own conduct will be such that others have no choice but to block you. John Carter (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)