User talk:Acdcrocks

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

English plurals

Try something like {{subst:new en plural|date-rapist}}. Thanks, Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

whore out

Hi. What have sell out, far out, and get out got to do with this? Just sharing the word "out" doesn't seem to make them relevant on that page. Equinox 23:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Thanks. I kinda want to do more of these, but I lost whatever thing I used to use to upload to Wikimedia, and it was a complicated pain. Equinox 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

sulfoquinovosyldiacylglycerol would be good. Equinox 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Equinox 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern Califonia

Besides the fact that this is misspelled; it is not a Spanish word. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


We do have an adj headline template. See my changes to this entry. JamesjiaoTC 03:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming audio files

The norm for naming audio files for Wiktionary is the use the language code + country code + word (sometimes followed by a number is a file by that name already exists). We don't include dialectical designations because that screws up the bots that then add the audio files to all the lesser-edited Wiktionaries. For example, when an English or Latin audio file is added to Commons, there is a bot that can recognize the file name structure and insert it into the Polish Wiktionary, Swahili Wiktionary, Albanian Wiktionary, etc. When the filename contains other characters not part of this pattern, the file will not be recognized by the bots. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the norm, and that's stated on a page on Commons for general use across all languages. A whole group of us worked together to create a standard that would work. Dialectical information is given in the text accompanying the file, not in the filename itself. There are no standard codes for dialects, either in English or in any other language. The bots cannot be "updated" to accommodate an arbitrary system. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been doing, I have the language code, US and the word in almost every upload, sometimes a number or something like that to differentiate. I think its very important to include the dialect in my commons uploads. That being a separate project I don't see how anyone here should have a say. I don't think it could screw up the bots any worse than having a 1 on the end of it. In the future I think we could potentially have recordings for all words in all dialects so I am looking ahead and adding the dialect. I am adding them for the English wikitionary and if the other languages don't get to use my recordings and the bot wont be updated so be it. In any case I could simply license my voice only to be used on English wiktionary and that would be the end of that argument or all my recordings could be removed upon replacement by someone else uploading something better and following your format. I add it to the file name because I suspected that in the actual (Northern California, US) someone would have a problem with it, but I didn't want the dialect to not be recorded Its important to me. There are indeed specifications for Canada, UK, US, and Australian English so there should be some for Southern, Northerna and Southern California English, New York English etc because pronunciation differs dramatically with hundreds of documented vowel shifts. The mold here does not fit the language.

Standard formatting

Please use standard Wiktionary formatting in all entries. Sections like Etymology and Pronunciation must be at level 3. Level 2 is reserved for headers of language names.

Also, all audio links should be preceded by a bullet, as the Pronunciation section items are bulleted by community standard. A country abbreviation is given to accompany the file. Localized information below the level of country is generally not given except for situations of extreme (consistent) regional differences. When a word's pronunciation varies inconsistently within regions, no designation below country should be given. If a sub-national designator is included, it should follow the country abbreviation. --EncycloPetey 03:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What's this level 2 or 3 you speak of? How do you bullet something? I don't think I am making any mistakes in this arena, and if I am not very often. I simply copied the format for every other audio file mention I found on here. And generally not is different from we don't. What are you quoting anyways? And the prounciation differences are indeed profound and consistently different. A subnational designator is included and I always have ncalif follow the country abbreviation, so I don't know what your complaint is.Acdcrocks 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


The consensus is to let you edit, but to restrict you to one account. Please do not operate simultaneous accounts, especially in order to circumnavigate blocks. Please do use WT:ELE or copy formatting from existing entries to find out how to format entries. Please do comment on WT:RFD and WT:RFV debates. Please do not use intimidating behavior and or harassment. Final warning. Now go edit. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok.Acdcrocks 21:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


FYI, it seems someone has deleted or moved the pronunciation file you tried to add to beefcake, so the link didn't work, so I reverted your addition of it. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah there was a discussion in the beer parlour or somewhere where they decided it was too "death metal". Fugyoo 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm I rerecorded a non death metal version of it but it appears it wasn't working, maybe I need to try a third time.Acdcrocks 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm transsexual

The page name is I'm transsexual so the head word, definitions and translations are also for I'm transsexual, not any sentence one cares to come up with. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

unblock 1 legal threat threat

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Acdcrocks (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked so that I can adhere to policies, continue to contribute to this project, not bicker pettily with anyone, not individuals nor coteries, be civil, not make any legal threats out of frustration, or jest, and follow the inclusion regulations, I do apologize to Dick in the unlikely chance that while using the vilest language at me he truly managed to be harmed or bothered by my ridiculous claim that I would file a restraining order, if that is the case I regret any bad feelings, I carry no ill will toward him or anyone and I would not waste my time in that godawful town of Martinez if I could avoid it. The idea that I would actually go through with someone like that is silly, I understand wikimedia's policy that all such comments are taking seriously. I also should point out that based on his own statements the legal threat is not the actual reason I am blocked but rather his person dislike of me and I believe a neutral party should resolve this matter. Thank you and good night.

Anybody there? 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Just a note about our general practices: in most cases where a word has different forms for other genders and numbers, we only put the masculine singular form in the translation section: negrillo, negrito, negrote, negraso. Then the feminines and plurals, etc., are given on the negrillo/negrito/negrote/negraso pages. This keeps the translation sections from getting too cluttered and complex, since some languages have even more different forms than Spanish has.
Also, it is usually the best practice not to include every possible masculine singular synonym in the translation sections, but only the most common synonyms...then all synonyms including the uncommon ones like negraso can be shown on the negrillo/negrito/negrote pages. —Stephen (Talk) 20:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

gotcha, but we really don't include the feminine?Acdcrocks 21:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Usually only on the masculine singular page, like negro; however, the feminine and plural forms also get their own pages: negra, negros, negras. But in the translation section of black, it is sufficient to put negro.
Of course, there are exceptions. For nurse, it might make sense to add enfermera as well as enfermero, because English-speakers usually think of nurse as feminine. —Stephen (Talk) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

your to-do list

Please don't add "plastic bottle", "protein powder" and the like unless you know that they mean something else than plastic + bottle and protein + powder. They are sums of their parts, and we don't want such entries in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 04:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have an overly narrow and dranconian view and that anything that is two words is a sum of parts instead of a compound word. There are hundreds if not thousands of allegedly sum of parts terms here that have survived deletion and verify tests. "We don't want such entries" just comes off as intimidation IMHO because you have a personal opinion on what meets CFI. Plastic bottle for example has rich idiomatic uses. Some are made of polyeurithene, others of polystrene, others from corn starch, some are thick some are thin. Some plastic containers are used for drinking water, others for carrying motor oil both are plastic and bottles but plastic bottle chiefly denotes for human consumption. It is a unique idea. In many languages plastic bottle is one word. Like metal container can be called "can" in English, and glass container, is simply "glass" in English. It would be useful to have an entry for this subject to for the purposes of knowing how to say this word in other languages. Looking into the translation for plastic and bottle would result in "plastico botella" which doesn't make a lot of sense and many wouldn't deduce. I think a huge trepidation for anything that may even seem sum of parts is that it would see 1 or 2 edits and be left alone not well done. I only plan on making good entries with citations and keeping an eye on them and I watchlist them all. That is my two cents. And just to be clear I will not be adding anything resembling "a powder made out of protein" or "bottle made out of plastic" anytime soon.Acdcrocks 07:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, these are good terms and we need many more multiword terms. However, most of the admins here don’t have much practical experience with dictionaries, and as a result they tend to think that every term with more than one word is SoP. I add them in Russian and Khmer, but I have given up on adding them in English. You can work on a new two-word term for two hours, only to find it soon deleted. —Stephen (Talk) 04:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Nor do I, but I know a word when I see one and I know a subject or predicate non-word when I see one too. Like "The blue box." is a three word sentence, while "The big box store" is a two or three word sentence. If you want we can work together if you have any word ideas, feel free to add requests on my user page. I think that SoP appearing terms just need to be done very well and if they are they obviously get kept on deletion or verification as shown with bottled water which I thought would be deleted speedily in all honestly. You know it boggled my mind that this dictionary has a whole list of idiomatic/SoP ok words but if you enter something that is a near synonym people just ignore the fact. Honestly if it is used as word/noun then it is a word. You know I just always put it into perspective that the OED was written by patients at an insane asylum.Acdcrocks 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)



Why do you persist in misformatting quotations?

RuakhTALK 15:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon?Acdcrocks 22:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Ruakh, you could inform the user how to correctly format quotations, maybe correct one, so the user can learn--Rockpilot 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
He asked me at my talk-page; I answered; he continued to do it his way; hence my question here. —RuakhTALK 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You are implying I am making a conscious effort to enter quotes the wrong way. I am not, I am adding them in a very standard fashion as coached by other editors. Your example was not standard or useful, a specific example of the aforementioned "misformatted" quotation would be useful don;t you think?.Acdcrocks 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think usexs should precede quotes, that makes the little quotations look very ugly and I almost exclusively see it done the way I do. I don't think putting the issue in parentheses is standard either. Also asking for the ISBN/ISSN number is rather excessive and unnecessary. I add as much information as I have on hand. But I can't be looking up ISSM numbers just to please you. Also your 2000 version of the cite is one of half a dozen ways of entering the url. I am not persisting in doing anything wrong. Lack of information does not equate doing it incorrect. Using<!---[]---> for urls appears standard and accepted. Is there a particular page that deals exclusively with cites as they are typically entered here? Or just a page that is incredibly convoluted that gangbangs every conceivable type of cite into a huge pickyourpart onesizefitsall impossible to understand unless you wrote it guideline?Acdcrocks 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think your quotations are fine. Good enough anyway, they convey all the information needed. For me, great information conveying trumps great formatting every time. --Rockpilot 23:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • But they are not conveying all the information needed. And anyway, given your history of misinformation and vandalism, Acdckrocks would be crazy to trust your advice. —RuakhTALK 01:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Which quote is not conveying all the information needed? What information is needed? Where does it say that that information is needed? I have the same history of misinformation you had when you started here and that is irrelevant to this topic of quotations and is rather presumptions and rude. You are misinformed yourself, I have never committed any vandalism here. Making these accusations is all very counterproductive don't you think? I am committed to editing here both well and correctly. If you would like me to do so and are willing to hold yourself to the same standard then clearly we can cooperate very well and I would like that. That is why I reached out to you in the first place. Your commentary however is very vague and your rhetoric is accusational and ironically misinformed itself. I would note the only alleged vandalism was the audio file at beefcake but that was entirely a misunderstanding. I added a humorous audio file. The community here decided to remove it. I never put it back in. I recorded a non-humorous regular audio file and added that. Some users carelessly believed I was readding the humorous file without noticing that the file name was different and without listening to the audio file itself. There are three audio files. The first replacement malfunctioned. Then there was a third and it is on that entry now and it is not vandalism. Ask user:Equinox if you don't believe me. If all you saw was the initial discussion comments regarding my alleged vandalism without looking further into the manner you may have made a misinformed judgment on my actions here if for some other reason you are under the believe I have a history of vandalism I should think it is a reasonable expectation to have of you to tell me what history that is exactly, or better yet proof if you have any, hearsay, conjecture, anything; because that is news to me. But it is simple answer my questions and we can resolve the matter at hand.Acdcrocks 01:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I was not accusing you of misinformation or vandalism: as you can see, that comment was a reply to Rockpilot. —RuakhTALK 01:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
oh well don't I feel like an asshole. Sorry.Acdcrocks 01:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • @Acdcdrocks: The quotations at half birthday are totally perfect. If you can format them like that every time, we will be (well, I will be, anyway, and I am sure others can agree with me) extremely happy. --Rockpilot 08:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I have formatted the quotations at half birthday. Their content seemed okay, but the formatting was less than perfect, with reference to WT:". The easiest way to get the formatting right is IMHO to use {{quote-book}}: just fill-in the blanks of the template and you're done. --Dan Polansky 12:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The edits you made are incredibly superficial and the complaints that capitalizing the word "Page" being bizarre is just pedantic, it seems some editors waste their time on the most arcane details looking to block someone. I pray for the children of the world none of you is a teacher. If so pedagogy classes are in order. Dan how do you use that template?Acdcrocks 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I have used the template in the page itself: half birthday. Here the use, again: #* {{quote-book|year=2009|author=Bill Glazer, Dan Kennedy|title=Outrageous Advertising That's Outrageously Successful|page=257|passage=After all, a '''half-birthday''' celebration for an adult is OUTRAGEOUS in itself.}}
      • The edits I have made are formatting edits rather than content edits; they are edits to make the formatting conform to WT:", which most Wiktionary entries adhere to. I did not complain of anything being "bizzare", so watch your accuracy. Wiktionary is rather concerned with formatting, so you would do well to learn it.
      • As regards teachers, they see it as they business to tell kids about the mechanics of writing including punctuation and spelling, which are minor points of communication in a way, yet kind of useful.
      • As regards blocking, you were blocked not for your minor formatting mistakes but rather for making legal threats, under the user Gtroy (talkcontribs). Furthermore, after reading WT:AGF AKA "assume good faith", you may realize that it is unfair to assume that I fixed your minor formatting mistakes in order to block you. It turns out that I am not an admin, and cannot block you anyway. --Dan Polansky 07:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all most teachers are losers. Second of all my comments were directed at both you and Ruahckh and other users. I never used your name or "you" so maybe you should take your own advice about assuming good faith before dishing it out. And I have (if you bother to look through my edits) editing some of my quotations to the method you suggested. I still don't understand the mechanics of implementing your template into an existing entry but I don't see how it could be particularly useful.Acdcrocks 09:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The direction of your comment: you say 'I never used your name or "you"', which is incorrect, as you have said "The edits you made are incredibly superficial", which contains "you". Again, watch your accuracy.
Using the template: If you examine the source text of half birthday, you should see how the template is used. If you examine the edit in which I have added the template, you may figure out what is it that I have actually done. Many people do not use the template. The template is useful in that it does the formatting for you, so you do not need to remember what should be in boldface, italics, where commas and colons should be, and the like. So you don't need to use the template if you do not find it convenient. --Dan Polansky 11:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to get into it with you. Clearly I rebuked what you claimed I was saying about you that you refuted, then got defensive on my clarification based on something I did say about you-changing subjects about whether what you were complaining about that I had said was about you at all. Reread your comments if any confusion remains, thank you. So you just copy in {{quote}} save it then edit and then fill in the blanks and save it?Acdcrocks 21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh and get your act together, I never made legal threats.Acdcrocks 21:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
My mistake: you have made a single legal threat. This legal threat was the reason why you have been blocked; your many formatting mistakes were not the reason for the block. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Feel better now sunshine?Acdcrocks 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Minor formatting errors, even persistent ones, are unlikely to get you blocked; but continued immaturity, such as you are currently displaying, very well might. Your behavior is verging on trolling. Just so you know. —RuakhTALK 00:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I am just returning facetiousness with facetiousness. Thank you for the reality check. So are you able to find anything wrong with pimped out still? The formatting is exactly as you have asked.Acdcrocks 03:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: "The formatting is exactly as you have asked": You are mistaken. —RuakhTALK 20:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The burden of evidence is on you, so what's wrong with it hon?Acdcrocks 21:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The burden of evidence is not on me; I've already told you what's wrong with it; don't call me "hon". —RuakhTALK 21:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a term of endearment hon, and yes it is, you claim it is bad editing and I have repeatedly fixed it to your liking and you keep pointing out things wrong with it, but now all you do is say it is wrong without substantiating it, which is a problem and is your burden, get what I mean?Acdcrocks 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

cock pilot

claim your prize! You can have whatever you want from me. Congratulations. --Rockpilot 22:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I want my fuckin' cookies godamnit.Acdcrocks 01:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I'll bake some when you come to visit me --Rockpilot 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

haha where is that?Acdcrocks 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona, my good friend. --Rockpilot 21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

¿eres español piloto?Acdcrocks 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


This edit of yours removed punctuation in a way that makes the sentence ungrammatical. --Dan Polansky 06:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not written that way ever. You are being pedantic dude.Acdcrocks 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he has a point (pun intended). Your punctuation was incorrect. Pedantic maybe, but after all, we are a dictionary, so things like correct spelling, grammar and punctuation are certainly desired. --Rockpilot 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

big brother

You need to move most of your quotes to Big Brother. SemperBlotto 08:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple edits

Do you think you could reduce the number of subsequent edits in one article, by doing more work in one edit, and making use of the preview function? You recedent editing in big brother has lead to 8 subsequent edits, which does not need to be that way. The thing is, all these edits lead to the creation of new revisions, each of which is stored as a full copy of the previous revision. Furthermore, it make the listing of the article history needlessly long. --Dan Polansky 09:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I do as many edits as necessary to make things right. I do use the preview function. And who cares it's a wiki dude, the point is to have multiple edits over time to make things great. In fact most entries only ever have 2 to 3 edits EVER and that is often touted as a problem.Acdcrocks 19:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm this is quite annoying. The preview will let you do as many edits as you want without saving the page until you're satisfied. All edits have to be "patrolled" (marked as non-vandalism) by some admin or other, so you are making a bunch of work. Equinox 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well with big brother it was not possible, I made an error as there are entries for big brother and Big Brother, or else the edits would be much fewer. I don't needlessly make tons of edits to bother anyone. There is nothing wrong with editing a lot and if you don't like it maybe you shouldn't be an admin or patrol them.Acdcrocks 19:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Also why not just look at the final of a series of edits, it's the only one that matters anyways, right?Acdcrocks 19:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

US Marines

I doubt "US Marines" (which you have just created) is the sort of content that is going to be kept in Wiktionary. The same is true of "United States Marine Corps", not created by you. --Dan Polansky 09:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your point?Acdcrocks 19:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock 2 dick overeating to disagreements at power bottom and abusing his powers

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Acdcrocks (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I was blocked without any reason at all by a user with a history of making abusive comments toward me and bullying me, I have not done anything listed at the reasons someone may be blocked and this is completely unwarranted. The only dispute that has occurred is adding an additional definition to the term power bottom which the blocking editor claims is superfluous, however it has an opposite meaning and happens to be IMHO the most prevalent definition of the term. In any case he disputed me adding it and also disputed me adding the antonym power top and removed them, so later after doing some research I added it back in as best and precisely as I could with the appropriate quotations and readded power top as well and with quotations. This user has an admitted "personal vendetta" against me and this block is absolutely ridiculous.Acdcrocks 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What's absolutely ridiculous is the idea that I have a personal vendetta against this user or anyone, admitted or otherwise. The user should know by know not to edit war. But he apparently prefers to edit war than to discuss an issue, and I've blocked him for a whole three days, which should be enough for him to learn to discuss rather than war. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This user himself in his own words has stated that he has a personal vendetta against me. I did not enter into any edit war. This user said that the edit I made was adding an identical definition, I communicated to him that this was not the case in the edit summary, and he chose to not read the entry. He also likes to make disturbing sexually violent comments towards me. I also think it is important to note that none of my edits were purely back and forth revisions exactly. I kept trying to update the entry to reach a compromise. This user never attempted to dialogue this in any way. He should have taken it to verification or asked another user for an opinion. My edits kept improving the article, adding an alternate form, adding an antonym, formatting quotations, not just trying to force my attestation down the articles throat back and forth. As far as I know doing that back and forth 3 times and more is what an edit war actually is. Notwithstanding his version of the term only had 2 quotes mine had the necessary 3. He also kept removing quotations which doesn't help anyone. The quotations also don't support his claim that my definition is exactly the same. Dominant bottom, submissive bottom, are polar opposites. Also if indeed we are in opposite universe land and opposites=same thing then the quotations he stole from me don't match the definition he claims it to be.Acdcrocks 20:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Trying to talk sense to some of these lunatics can be very tricky, acdcrocks. I want to keep you here, I have lots of faith in you. But please, don't be so stupid as you are at times. --Rockpilot 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yawn, when someone is just jealous of you due to their own haunting insecurities what can you do?Acdcrocks 01:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    lol, normally, I just get over it --Rockpilot 01:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I definitely don't lose sleep over it, that's for damn sure.Acdcrocks 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

unblock 3 for wishing people happy halloween

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Acdcrocks (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Liliana I am not doing any spamming, all I did was reach out to the people I most interact with to wish them a happy halloween, if was about 6 or 7 people and that was it. I stopped on my own. I wasn't going about adding my two cents to as many people as possible. A block isn't necessary.
"about 6 or 7 people" - Ha. I admire your math skills. In all seriousness, I did in fact wait for a bit to see if you would stop on your own, and you didn't, so I blocked you immediately to stop this on track. Really most people could care less what kind of holiday it is right now. Imagine if you did that for Christmas, New Year's, Easter, and all those Christian holidays! -- Liliana 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Look at your own "my contributions" you reverted exactly 7 of my edits. I said Happy Halloween to all 7 simultaneously as I opened all 7 tabs. When you say you waited, when you did, which other edits did I make? You are seriously mistaken here. I had already stopped. How bout imagine if I just said Happy Halloween to 7 people and you overreacted hon? It wasn't spam, I wasn't trying to sell Halloween candy. What do Christian holidays have to do with any of this anyways? And Christmas is a commercial holiday, New Years isn't even religious at all and is universal and I didn't wish anyone happy Easter. Am I missing something here? Cause after I wished a few people happy halloween, I was looking over Halloween related edits made by Rockpilot and I was going to fix them up a bit i.e. vampirsito doesn't have a link to the feminine vampirsita, and I was going to comment on the power bottom debate.Acdcrocks 23:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think a simple "stop that" might have been enough. Fugyoo 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly dude, that's all it would have taken. This is ridiculous. I was under the impression that you can just say hi to people on here from the very way people have personal conversations on their talk pages all the time.Acdcrocks 23:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm leaving this open for another admin to judge. I'm unwilling to discuss any further. -- Liliana 23:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I just rechecked my edit history to give you the benefit of the doubt. I made only 7 editors, Dick Laurent, Stepgen G. Grown, Mglovesfun, Hbrug, Pilcrow, and SemperBlotto, in that order. The only other person I considered was equinox, cause equinox is cool. And I was just trying to send a nice message out to all those that have helped me or with whom I have had a disagreement and wanted to send them a message of goodwill. No malice was meant at all. It was friendly. So exactly for how long did you stop to see if I would stop?Acdcrocks 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
PERMABAN — [Ric Laurent] — 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You know I was just sending you a message of goodwill dude ever after you very recently called me a "dumb cunt" (and other lascivious comments on your talk page and mine) and I still tried to be nice to you, what's your problem? Why are you such a loser?Acdcrocks 23:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Liliana, also I understand most people could care less and I wont ever send any holiday messages to anyone here again. It was not indiscriminate or random, I just selected a few familiar editors and that was that, believe me or not. I just wish you had not been so reactionary.<sigh>Acdcrocks 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Acdcrocks. You should improve your ability to say messages of good will, and whatnot. "happy halloween!" is cheap.

Small talk can be a terrible crime. You have been warned. Today your block expires. Have a happy unbirthday. --Daniel 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine I wont talk to anyone on here anymore, I wont even try.Acdcrocks 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 :) --Daniel 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you serious, he got banned for wishing people Happy Halloween? And you called it spamming! That's totally lame of you, Liliana. --Rockpilot 13:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention a lie and utter misrepresentation of policy!Acdcrocks 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
He was spreading Satanism! Everybody knows Halloween is totally Satanic. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would remove this comment from my talk page but you would just ban me for it, even though you remove my comments at will. Hypocite.Acdcrocks 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The obvious solution would have been to not overturn the lifetime block I gave the user a few weeks ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Solution? What is the problem? Is there a rule against sending a few people a message on here?Acdcrocks 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this his 3rd sockpuppet? Our block "policies" are a complete fucking joke when someone like Troy can get banned several times, ultimately permanent, then make a new account, get it banned, then another one and we say oh we'll give him another chance. Then he gets banned and banned and banned and whines and whines every single time... Our blocking policies are... well, like I said, a complete joke. This particular block might have been stupid, but I have a feeling the next time I block Troy it'll be another permanent one. Just a feeling. Maybe he'll be slightly more behaved when he starts editing again, but... we'll see. — [Ric Laurent] — 14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Our block policy works for less obstinate people. Presumably, we can use it to scare many IPs away, assuming they won't come back with other IPs and/or user accounts before their blocks expire. But Wiktionary is so awesome, some people think they have to ignore blocks and edit again ASAP. --Daniel 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This is like my fiftieth account but is not a sock puppet, I don't maintain any others. The bans were totally uncalled for. You repeatedly say the most vile things to me like calling me a stupid cunt or something similar and that is clearly grounds for you being blocked. double standard. You are a vulgar sexual harasser and have no credibility. You have it out for me and will no doubt permaban me for any minor reason you see fit. I was not misbehaving stop misleading people and get real dude.Acdcrocks 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The indentation of messages strongly implies chronological order; please respect it. --Daniel 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I just want to edit here, it's a hobby I have and my contributions are worthwhile if you ask me. I am not ignoring any blocks dude, I am going by the policy.Acdcrocks 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Surely you have worthy contributions. Regardless of past conflicts and discussions, 24 hours blocked for this specific justification was overkill; I would rather give a 5 minutes block. In Wiktionary-ese, a very short block is like a friendly "stop that! and please come back when you want to edit constructively again; I know you can". --Daniel 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Even five minutes just for trying to be friendly is silly. A 24-hour block is indefensible. Be that as it may... whenever you see Ric making comments like "He was spreading Satanism!", those are jokes. That’s his humor. You started taking everything he says too seriously from the start, and that led up to the bad feelings. Ric would never say "He was spreading Satanism!" as an insult or attack, because he thinks the very idea of it is funny.
It’s difficult to interact socially on a computer, because humor, irony, and sarcasm are frequently taken literally. People can’t make eye contact and can’t make adjustments for age or education, because these usually require visual cues. Some people can get good results with emoticons, but it takes a lot of practice. :) —Stephen (Talk) 01:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The satanism comment is clearly just faceitious and humorous, but the "dumb cunt" comment and lying to other unsuspecting editors that I am block evading, that I am making disruptive edits, removing my comments from his talk page, but throwing a shitfit when I have removed his vulgar writings and innuendos from mine in addition to rallying for a completely unjustiefied permaban against me, don't come off as a joke in any way, and I doubt they are intended to be humorous.Acdcrocks 09:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's edits like this one that prove to me that this user is incapable of putting aside his desire to cause trouble and drama long enough to make a few decent edits. So... I've given him another indefinite block. I pray this is finally the end of it. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, this proves that Dick has bigger balls than you, that's pretty much all...but his balls are fucking massive, man, it's a surprise we're not all blocked... But I still think you're pretty much awesome. And Rick thinks the same about me, so I think that by subclause 21D paragraph 73 that means you have the right to be unblocked. --Rockpilot 23:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock 4 Dick Laurent blocking me for the sake of blocking me

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Acdcrocks (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

"stirring up trouble" is not a valid reason to block anyone, this user keeps bothering me for no reason except that he dislikes me and should be blocked himself. He removes comments I make on his talk page, but insists on adding abhorrent comments to mine and I get in trouble for wanting to remove them from mine. I should be unblocked because I am being unfairly targeted here.

Fancy a bumfuck?

Fancy creating a good page for bumfuck? It can be an adjective "this a bumfuck place", a noun "fancy a quick bumfuck?" or "you're such a bumfuck", or even a verb "they were bumfucking in the garage". --Rockpilot 23:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)