User talk:Michael N Cooper

The above was perhaps a bit harsh but certainly the summary on this edit shows that you have not yet learned how to read an edit history. Also you need to learn about categories and not create new categories at random. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael N Cooper, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Michael N Cooper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk![edit]

This edit tells me something else that you have not yet learned - this, your user_talk page, is for people to leave you messages. It should not be redirected. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, user_talk stuff doesn't belong on the user page. I've removed it.--Laun chba ller 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want it to stay. Thank you. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It stays. Period. Got a problem son? Take it to admin. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. User:Michael N Cooper is not your talk page. User talk:Michael N Cooper is.--Laun chba ller 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you know what to do. Goodbye. Michael N Cooper (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael_N_Cooper reported by User:Launchballer (Result: ). Thank you. Laun chba ller 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cats[edit]

I was pleased to see this edit but I disagree with the edit summary. Putting yourself in the category: page was a total deviation from standards and hopeless vanity. I challenge you to find one person who approves of the immediately preceding edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling and not being here to build an encyclopedia. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I believe my user page was not in any type of violation. I believe my edits were decent. I feel my only downfall was a shaky start and a bad relationship with some editors. I made some categories which were inappropriate, I came to realize this and did not persist in their re-creation at the time of my block. I am of the belief that everything at the last moment before being blocked was moving forward and upward. I wish to prove that I am here to create an encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

I'm having trouble finding a single one of your edits that is of any value to our encyclopedia. Perhaps you might point us to one or two. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:19, 18 June 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.

In response to 1st decline[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did one or two tests, and could not revert myself because the cluebot was faster than I was. If unblocked, no more tests except on sandbox. I made some constructive edits which I wish to carry on with such as [1], it might look plain but if you revert me you'll find the valid article link is absent because it had been wrongly redacted. Without the shadow of a doubt this was a good edit and I believe this edit was evidently in good faith. More of those are set to continue if I could resume editing rights. A few others have since been deleted.

Decline reason:

I've reviewed your edits and I think that maturity is a factor here. I am declining this for now but I recommend that if you still wish to edit in one year from now, that you come back and place a fresh request here. John (talk) 10:54, 21 June 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.

I think you're right that you've made a few good contributions, though your behavior in edit summaries (and in deleted edits) is concerning. I'm willing to give you a second chance if you can promise to behave in a civil manner towards other editors. Of course, if this behavior continues, it'll confirm Bbb23's belief you're not here to edit constructively. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem, I'm not in favor of unblocking at this time. I think the user should wait at least six months. There are many vandals who are blocked for VOA but still do a few constructive edits. The reasons for the phenomenon vary by editor. I'd at least like to hear from Jpgordon and John, both of whom declined the requests. If there's a consensus to unblock, I will, of course, defer to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I shall be civil towards all other editors, will focus only on decent edits, and will carry out no more tests. A promise. Michael N Cooper (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23--fair enough. I think John's new decline above is right. If the user takes some time off Wikipedia and returns without trying to evade the block, I think they'll be more successful in getting it lifted. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]