Welcome!Edit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Gödel's incompleteness theorems. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (68.48.241.158) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 17:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


February 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ontological argument seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at George Harrison shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

George HarrisonEdit

Read WP:BRD. Get consensus. If you continue to edit war you will be blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, 68.48.241.158. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, 68.48.241.158. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 23:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editsEdit

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to John von Neumann seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ScrpIronIV 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Harrison talk pageEdit

Explain how I have stopped "others from weighing in." Anyone can comment on the talk page, and I have done nothing to stop anyone from doing so. It's a false accusation, and if it continues it becomes a personal attack. Consider this a warning. Sundayclose (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

lol it's a figure of speech meaning hoping you'd keep quiet to let others weigh-in before you weigh in once again (hoping/I've never told you not to weigh-in)...and btw explain how I accused you of "stopping" others....nice try...anyway, flattered by you following me around Wikipedia...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not a figure a speech to suggest that I have not "let others weigh in". I didn't say you told me to stop weighing in; I said you falsely accused me of not letting others weigh in. Be careful with your words. Once might be a careless mistake. Do it again and it will be malicious. The warning stands. Sundayclose (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

again, good try..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016Edit

  This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Mlpearc, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


I will not be blocked, as I've done nothing wrong...as the record will show...no so sure about you and your false accusation of harassment, and other misrepresentations about 'soapbox' etc, however..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Mlpearc. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

please stop trying to intimidate me away from the Wikipedia community with false accusations...or I will report you..and you will be found to be in the wrong..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

StopEdit

Stop posting on my talk page, if I'm done with your trolling on Talk:George Harrison I sure don't want it on my talk page. Any posting to my talk page is considered harassment. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

when you improperly and erroneously accuse me of something like 'soapbox' I can point it out to you...so you can be educated by your own link...for future reference...so maybe then you won't incorrectly accuse people in the future...not even close to harassment, if you read the info on that...try to get me blocked if want to be convinced of this...i'll just point to he record..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned by several editors that persisting with issues even after consensus is against you, and persistently posting to others' talk pages, is disruptive. If you make any further posts about the "Something" issue or any other posts harassing other editors, I will block you from editing. --Laser brain (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

what are you talking about? it's a talk section that's still open? I posted substantive info to it...wouldn't consensus be finalized once the section has been closed? I haven't harassed anyone...I've been harassed though....what do you mean you will block me??? you don't have the power to block me by yourself, do you? please respond.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's closed now. But I shouldn't have had to close it. Posting the same points repeatedly and responding with "lol" and other juvenile remarks to people who take the time to counter your points is disruptive. You should have let it drop once it was clear you were not gaining any traction. I don't see that you were harassed—I do see several people losing their patience with you after you repeatedly made the same remarks and wouldn't let the issue drop. I do indeed have the ability to block you and will not hesitate to do so if you continue your disruptive behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"I do indeed have the ability to block you and will not hesitate to do so if you continue your disruptive behavior." think you're misrepresenting to intimidate me..who can I ask about this??68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're questioning whether I am actually an administrator, you can verify that by viewing my user rights log here. If you are questioning whether administrators have the responsibility to block disruptive editors, you may read Wikipedia:Administrators. As I said, requesting a change and attempting to build consensus is fine. Repeating the same points and refusing to accept consensus is disruptive. You were doing the latter. --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with your characterization...I kept trying to get the conversation to return to substance...and my final post was a link to a source that supported my point...it's a talk page that was still open.... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Doing the same thing on this page is not helping. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

not helping what? I made a suggestion and am trying to build consensus with substantive links to support my suggestion in a talk page...not helping your agenda of winning and me losing? that's not how it's supposed to work..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally, you've got it, your problem, editing Wikipedia is not about winning and losing Mlpearc (open channel) 21:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

right, that's what I just explained to you...???.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

mad at me for substantively advocating my point in an open talk page...ridiculous.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have simply not engaged in anything that would qualify as 'harrassment' according to Wikipedia's guidelines...I've only substantively advocated my proposal in talk page...when falsely accused of something, I informed that their accusations did not adhere to Wikipedia's own guidelines for what they were accusing me of...and then tried to return to substantive discussion...

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Your reason here 68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Decline reason here OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If you decide to appeal again, I suggest that you (1) follow the simple directions on how to use the unblock template and (2) address the reason you were blocked in the first place (i.e., harassment, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

what did I do wrong as far as the template? and I did address the reason...it's simply untrue...where's the examples of me harassing someone according to Wikipedia's definition of harassment??? how do I prove a negative?? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have simply not engaged in anything that would qualify as 'harrassment' according to Wikipedia's guidelines...I've only substantively advocated my proposal in talk page...when falsely accused of something, I informed that their accusations did not adhere to Wikipedia's own guidelines for what they were accusing me of...and then tried to return to substantive discussion..where's the examples of me harassing someone according to Wikipedia's definition of harassment??? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Somehow I don't think your stance of "I'm not calling anybody intellectually dishonest - but adding the content I agree with to the article is intellectually dishonest" is conductive to a collaborative editing environment. Your stance of "I disbelieve the statement, thus I'll ignore the sources that explicitly support it" isn't helpful either. Huon (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: can you quote something specifically I did that warrants a ban based on personal attack or harassment Wikipedia guidelines.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not dropping the stick after a strong consensus was established with you as the sole dissenter here,and here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:...thought I was banned for "personal attacks" (never made a single one that would qualify under Wikipedia's guidelines, not even close) and "harassing others" (never did, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, not even close)...even if you think "I didn't drop the stick" in an appropriate amount of time in this case (I disagree) that warrants a one week ban from all articles...??? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikilawyering this isn't going to get you anywhere. You were being disruptive in more ways than one, which should be clear to anyone who examines your recent edits along with the warnings and suggestions given to you by multiple users. I'm not commenting on it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

be nice if something substantive that actually qualified for such a ban could be pointed to...instead of vague assertions that the record doesn't support, @Ohnoitsjamie:...the spirit of Wikipedia would approve, I think..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: difficult to follow what you said as the sentence structures are so poor...seems like you were weighing in on the talk page proposal itself, and my logic within it, as opposed to whether anything in there warrants a one week ban.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In this edit you said, quote, "stating, "'something' is the second most covered Beatles song." would be intellectually dishonest". That effectively accuses all editors disagreeing with you (and Rolling Stone, too) of intellectual dishonesty. In this edit you claimed the statement about Something being the second-most covered album was "completely unverifiable" despite being supported by a reliable source, which by definition makes it verifiable. These two examples should suffice. Huon (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


@Huon: I was making the point that the RS statement is technically intellectually dishonest and that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, shouldn't perpetuate it(read my posts!)...this is a substantive argument within a talk page...I never called anyone personally intellectually dishonest...people then incorrectly accused me of harassment, which is itself a form of harassment according to Wikipedia's guidelines...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

excessive, punitive ban..which is against Wikipedia policy...stated reasons for ban don't apply, are not in record..never personally attacked or harassed anyone...just substantively advocated my position within an open talk thread...any ban should only be toward specific article, if deemed warranted (which it shouldn't be..) 68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have carefully studied your editing history, both before and after the block, and I see no reason to think that unblocking will benefit the project: on the contrary, everything you say here indicates that you are likely to continue to edit in the same way as before. You have persistently edited disruptively, in numerous ways, including the following: taking a belligerent battleground approach to editors with whom you disagree, refusal to accept consensus, refusal to drop the stick when it is abundantly clear that consensus is against you, persistent WP:IDHT when other editors say things that are contrary to your preferred view, unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and dishonesty against other editors, which amounts to personally attacking them, persistently posting your WP:IDHT diatribes on the talk page of the same editor, even when it has been made clear to you that they are unwelcome there, which amounts to harassment. What is more, on this page, While you are requesting an unblock, you continue in the same way: adding more battleground behaviour to editors with whom you disagree, adding more examples of WP:IDHT: if you really thought that doing that would be likely to get you unblocked, then I suggest that you think again, very carefully, and if you are considering making another unblock request don't do so until you have re-read the guide to appealing blocks, because another unblock request similar to those you have made so far is very likely to lead to talk page access being removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: most of your assertions are a subjective opinion as to my style of advocating a substantive change to an article within an open talk thread (like 'diatribes' 'belligerent' etc...(which is fine as all this can really be is an opinion..not that should rise to level of a ban, at least imo)..but I never objectively personally attacked anyone, used foul language, call anyone names, called anyone dishonest, called anyone a liar etc etc)..but "unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and dishonesty against other editors"...simply not in the record...this was invented from my putting forth a theoretical/philosophical point that one kind of assertion within the confines of an encyclopedia is technically intellectually dishonest, while another kind is not...and arguing that an encyclopedia should stick with the latter kind...and had absolutely nothing to do with anyone personally, as the record shows...anyway, not wasting my time with another appeal, doesn't matter...but must correct the record as far as that goes.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Drop the stickEdit

I advise you to drop the stick and stop arguing about the block. If you continue to argue about the block, you are likely to have talk page access revoked. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

no one can explain what i've done to warrant being blocked a week...(the stated reasons for the block "personal attacks/harassment" don't even apply...)...now I've got people coming up with ad hoc alternative theories that weren't even the stated ones (and there's no way these would warrant a one week ban)...and why am I being told I can't reply to people who say things to me...for example, you just said something to me..am I not allowed to reply???? so this very reply is going to get me in trouble????? 68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

When a number of editors with years of experiencing editing and administrating on Wikipedia tell you there is a problem, it is not a wise idea to tell them they are wrong. Accept that you have made mistakes. Try to be more collegial and less abrasive. Do not edit-war. Respect other editors' even when (especially when) you disagree with them. If you drop your aggressive behavior, it's more likely that you won't get blocked again once this block is over.
And most important, read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks because the way you are appealing your block ensures that your request will not be granted. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry you've been blocked. I can't see any reason for it either. Some of us are trying to make Wikipedia fairer, see User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biscuittin...well, seems in this case there's herd momentum that's built up...the action doesn't meet Wikipedia's stated policies/guidelines...ban arose from improper accusations that weren't in the record, me pointing this out, they getting mad at me for pointing this out, they threatening to block me for pointing it out, me questioning their right to do so, they getting mad that I questioned their right to do so, they blocking me as a matter of 'well we sure showed you!'...anyway, don't know if I can look into filing a complaint higher up the chain, or if I care/want to spend more time...it's good you're advocating for more accountability though....@Biscuittin:. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the English Wikipedia is controlled by a small group of very censorius editors (including some administrators) who harass anybody who disagrees with their views. The other administrators seem to be too scared to confront them, so it just goes on. I've recently seen an article which was published on the German and Czech Wikipedias without any problem, but was torn to pieces as soon as it appeared on the English Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that nearly all the censorius editors are British, not American. I suppose this is because the USA recognizes freedom of speech but the UK doesn't, because it has no constitution. Biscuittin (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

^interesting..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

MlpearcEdit

what is it you've linked to? what does it have to do with me? are you just trying to harass me? (note: I wouldn't tell you you're not allowed to post on my talk page as you told me, however, as that would be against Wikipedia's rules...) good day, @Mlpearc: 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ;-)Edit

Thanks ;-)

--Stone (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Help DeskEdit

Your repeated posts at the Help Desk are becoming tendentious, as are your edits at Godel's incompleteness theorem. Your posts at the Help Desk appear only be saying that you want to filibuster Godel's incompleteness theorem by leaving multiple sections about what at least User:David Biddulph and I consider one dispute. Also, at Godel's incompleteness theorems, it appears that you are posting very incomplete and biased Requests for Comments that don't raise a real issue. Please be aware that if you continue to waste time at either the Help Desk or Godel's incompleteness theorems, the unusual but in this case necessary action may be to semi-protect talk pages. I am ready to make that request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just stop complaining at the Help Desk. It is for questions, not general complaints. At the talk pages for Godel's incompleteness theorem, if you have a question about formal mechanisms, or about Godel's theorems, or about any other topic that is relevant to the article, ask or discuss it in a way that permits dialogue. If you post any more badly formatted RFC's, I will request semi-protection, because they are purely disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

simply have no idea what you're talking about...I have a content dispute and requested information about what route would be best to use for particular content dispute...as the different routes are confusing and difficult to decipher as to what to use when...my questions were never answered, but then moved around to make them less likely to be answered, it would seem...my request for comment is obviously in good faith (as genuine issue) and is now extremely straightforward as to what's being asked...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not see the content dispute. If you have a content dispute, you haven't stated it as one. If you really have a content dispute, some of us, who are content resolution volunteers, will do our best to help you. What is the content dispute? If you have a content dispute, valid questions at the Help Desk are how the dispute resolution process works. You haven't asked that. You have complained. What is the content issue? Before using a formal dispute resolution process such as third opinion, moderated dispute resolution, or Request for Comments, you need to try to discuss on the article talk page. What is the content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
If you are asking in good faith, then you need to reword your good faith requests, because they come across as complaints, not questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
there's two long threads above my RfC almost entirely between myself and one other editor...that came to no resolution...you'd have to read through all that (and have some understanding of the concepts involved in the topic, perhaps you do)....my second try at RfC is extremely straightforward, is it not???68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I have read your second effort at an RFC. While "straightforward" in the grammatical sense, I have no idea what point you are trying to use it to make about either formal systems or Godel's theorems. The article is about Godel's theorems, not formal systems in general. The RFC isn't about Godel's theorems. Also, it is an extremely non-neutral statement of whatever the issue is, because you appear to be trying to foreclose something, but I am not sure what you are trying to foreclose. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
"formal systems" are at the crux of the theorems as these are what the theorems apply to...so the article is continuously referencing them and discussing them...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an article Formal system, which would be the place for information about formal systems in general, as distinct from about Gödel's incompleteness theorems specifically. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
right, and how it's defined in there (correctly) is how I want it defined and discussed within the incompleteness article...there's a couple editors who are bothered by this and want to put forth an incorrect notion about formal systems within the incompleteness article, due to their philosophical beliefs about the topic....68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is normal behavior for this editor. There is a consensus on a page (which is redefined as "a couple editors" who disagree, and are therefore "wrong") and this IP goes forum shopping and generating RfC's until the patience of the community is exhausted. Take a look at the archives at Talk:George Harrison here; those walls of text were archived while this editor was blocked for generating them. If this disruptive behavior is continuing post block, some consideration should be given to taking the IP back to AN/I. ScrpIronIV 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

look at my editing history....I've made scores upon scores upon scores of helpful and positive contributions....I was in the right on the "Harrison" thing but eventually just dropped it....all I ever do is talk about substance, substance, substance....But I keep having to respond to personal attacks at me (like this one)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
and there's no consensus here...there are two editors on one side (only one who's really in strong opposition)....myself and another who wasn't quite sure....68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
and this is first time I've ever tried an RfC...why are people allowed to make untrue statements in an attempt to disparage me????68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The RFC has been archived as failed. I very strongly suggest, before trying another RFC, that you discuss at the article talk page about what it is that you are trying to accomplish. Also, consider yourself formally warned that your behavior at the Help Desk was disruptive, and any future complaints (rather than questions) at the Help Desk will be considered disruptive. Also, consider yourself formally cautioned that your "discussion" of the closed RFC was also seriously disruptive and seriously uncivil. If you engage in non-collaborative editing, either at the Help Desk, at other fora, or on talk pages, a block may be necessary, because semi-protection would interfere with the privilege of other, more reasonable, unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
you're behavior in that RfC was against policy and inappropriate...it is obvious you followed me over there from the help desk because you didn't like my request to not have my questions moved...you then immediately chimed in with a bad faith and against policy statement which was disruptive to substantive discussion and therefore hurtful to the Wikipedia project...I never behaved against Wikipedia policy...your suggestion I was uncivil is false and not in the record (though a purely subjective opinion)...you're behavior was objectively against policy, however...good day..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

RelatedEdit

Apologies if this was addressed above, but it doesn't look like it. 68.48.241.158, there are obviously many problems with what you've been doing, which Robert McClenon talked about above. However, you would be having a much easier time if you just held back on the tone used in your replies. I didn't pitch in on the RfC because I don't know Gödel from a bar of soap. (If I did, however, I'm sure you would have slaughtered me as you did other editors you said were unqualified.) I was, however, still tempted to oppose your request, simply due to the extremely irritating replies you had given. Just remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not your blog, and if enough people think something shouldn't be here, it goes. That's the way it is. Stop dismissing editors far more experienced than yourself and claiming things about them such as having "bad faith" and being "against policy and inappropriate", "disruptive... and... hurtful to the Wikipedia project". (And that's just in the one comment above me!) Hefty claims from a very controversial, and to me at this point very annoying, IP. Please, if you want to get anywhere on here, just be nice. Okay? Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

never "slaughtered" anyone nor said anyone was "unqualified"...said certain posts didn't qualify as proper contribution, which they don't according to the guidelines....continued false accusations against me are improper in themselves...good day..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I simply ask you to be more polite to other editors, all of whom are more experienced than you. It's for your own good. And yeah you did say they were unqualified; you said they shouldn't be making any comment unless they knew the theorems well. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016Edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at WP:Help Desk, you may be blocked from editing. Stop using the Help Desk to complain about other editors, and in particular stop calling their behavior (with respect to a poorly worded RFC) "vandalism". If you continue to use the Help Desk for complaints rather than for questions (and at least your latest post had some of the character of each), it will be necessary to take you to WP:ANI and request another block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
since my question was about what I might do about your improper behavior (which is continuing here)...this warning from you is utterly inappropriate...please cease this harassment. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:68.48.241.158, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. ScrpIronIV 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
please cease harassing me on my talk page with warnings that are themselves false accusations...or if you don't just "drop the stick" begin the process and the record can be looked at...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning on edit warring to remove others' comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)Edit

Do not remove the comments of others. If you think a comment goes against policy, ask an admin to take a look.

You have removed the comments of others here, here and here. Reverting again will likely get you blocked (and for longer than last time). See WP:3RR and WP:TPO. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

this is humorous, to say the least...as you are involved in putting personal attacks that have been removed according to policy back into a thread...I will seek action, I guess...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016Edit

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  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. Thank you. [1]

April 2016Edit

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

BlockEdit

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

please examine the talk thread I'll link to that I initiated...part way into the thread a derogatory, personal attack was made against me which is against policy...I reverted the comment based on "Civility" policy: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Other editors strangely came along and reinserted the personal attack...I reverted back, explaining policy...they would then reinsert the personal attack...I then asked for help from administrators on the noticeboard (please see that too)...people responded there in a way that seemed almost supportive of the against policy personal attack..I don't know how to tell whether any of these people were administrators or not but that seemed quite odd in itself (it seems a lot of editors know each other in a social networky kind of way)...I've now been blocked for "disruptive editing" which I can only interpret as punishment for reporting the personal attack/standing up against people violating policy...please stand up against these improper/against policy activities. (I just noticed that user "EEng" who was involved in the improper behavior and was vulgar to me on his talk page reached out to the person who blocked me and asked them to block me, see their talk page) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)&action=history 68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I would have blocked you myself if I would have seen this. You received ample and valid feedback (not for the first time) that your behavior and rhetorical style are not welcome here, and once again you have failed to understand what's going on around you and when to drop the stick. A clear pattern has emerged here and you will face escalating blocks if you will not attune yourself to how this community works. Laser brain (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"[.. ] it seems a lot of editors know each other in a social networky kind of way." Hold your horses there. I don't know 99% of these users. I occasionally come across editors over ANI reports we have participated. I don't know anybody else beyond that. That assumption was baseless and, in my opinion, stupid. If an admin refuses to unblock you, I would recommend that you drop the stick and move on. This is my last message. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 01:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

if you take a look at "EEng"'s request of the person who blocked me, it seems very buddy buddy. Please have a look. and it's disturbing as he's the one that was most inappropriate toward me and who I was seeking help with on the noticeboard...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I do indeed have an excellent rapport with EEng, and I've found that in most cases (as with this one) he's spot on with his analysis. You may blather on about your latest pet idée fixe in any number of places around the Internet, but Wikipedia is not one of them and your continued refusal to get the point will rapidly result in talkpage revocation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I engage substantively on Wikipedia and have never attacked anyone, used bad language, or acted in bad faith...when attacked/harassed/falsely accused against policy as the record clearly shows here in the case of EEng I seek recourse...I have run into the Orwellian result of being sanctioned myself for doing such (on two occasions now)...it is very, very disturbing. The person who denied my request this time is the person who blocked me the first time, I do believe. I am not sure what I can do about all this. But it all flies in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. Perhaps I can seek arbitration or email the foundation. What I would like is for people who are not involved to look at this with fresh eyes...68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The admin who reviewed your block appeal was not the person who first blocked you. This can be confirmed here. So, this user is not involved thus resulting that you really have to drop the stick before your talk page access is revoked. I suggest that you do so now unless you are willing to face the consequence. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 03:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
my mistake, this person was engaging with me just before I was blocked and was stating that they would block me..68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I engage substantively on Wikipedia and have never attacked anyone, used bad language, or acted in bad faith...when attacked/harassed/falsely accused against policy as the record clearly shows here in the case of EEng I seek recourse...I have run into the Orwellian result of being sanctioned myself for doing such (on two occasions now)...it is very, very disturbing. The person who denied my request this time is the person who blocked me the first time, I do believe. I am not sure what I can do about all this. But it all flies in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. Perhaps I can seek arbitration or email the foundation. What I would like is for people who are not involved to look at this with fresh eyes...68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Without commenting on all the myriad issues in your previous two posts, which I'm sure someone else will (and in the case of the first post already has) in fairly short order, might I suggest that invoking 1984 to talk about a website demonstrates a complete lack of perspective? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
idk, just an analogy...an issue I've noticed is that I'll point to people behaving objectively against policy (ie personal attacks) and I'll seek recourse and people will come back with subjective assertions (like "we don't like your rhetorical style" in my appeal denial...or just "disruptive editing" because I sought out recourse against personal attacks)...people don't like it being pointed out that they're behaving against policy, particularly when they've been on here for many years and have a social identity here...68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Block is improper. User "EEng" continuously reinserted another person's derogatory, personal attack into a talk thread. I had removed this attack according to WP: Civility: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." He then made a final personal attack of his own against me in the talk thread, which I also attempted to remove. (I warned him about this on his talk page, please see his uncivil response to me there too). During this time I had reached out to the Administrator's Noticeboard about help with all this. During this same time he reached out to his apparent administrator friend (see above, where this has now been acknowledged...and see the exchange in the talk page between them too) to have me blocked.. I have now been blocked by this person. I am very disturbed by this chain of events. It seems to fly in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. I was literally blocked for seeking recourse for the against policy behavior of other users. I would like to be unblocked please. I would also like users "EEng" and "David Eppstein" to be reminded of the policies against personal attacks and uncivil behavior by someone other than me. Here is talk page where problem arose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request is entirely about the conduct of others. You were blocked for your own conduct. Since you continue to make unfounded allegations about other users, I am revoking your talk page access for the duration of the block. You may make further unblock requests using Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. I suggest reviewing WP:NOTTHEM before doing so. Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you want to get blocked again?Edit

Dude, I already explained that if you continue acting like this you will be blocked again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:STICK. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Please read WP:CONDUCT and WP:STICK. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 05:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks, but it was his conduct that was inappropriate and which I tried to deal with (by collapsing the inappropriate back and forth)..and it was his interference in this that would be "not dropping the stick." how would "not dropping the stick" apply to me and not him in this case, unless we're in a very backwards universe...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
curious too..how do you appear just randomly out of nowhere on this talk page?68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been reviewing your contributions since User:The Quixotic Potato has reported you on the admin's noticeboard. I do have seen any, at least faithful, contributions to Wikipedia. It does not seem as if you understand "dropping the stick," as you cannot confirm that this edit was in good faith. It seems like at least 7 editors are telling the same thing to you over and over again. I'm not sure if anyone's going to give in your reasons for unblock, but you should be grateful that the block was only 72 hours and not indefinite. After this block, I suggest you to stop complaining about your "unfair" block and make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not create another argument about your block, unless it is absolutely necessary. You may have noticed that it only wastes your time and the community's time. Thank you. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 09:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you mean when I reported him..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016Edit

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for canvassing for votes in violation of policy (with this edit), as done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

That editor had just posted information based on extensive research he had taken time to do into the topic and its sources in a RfC TALK PAGE (wherein we were disagreeing, by the way)...I thought this information had relevance and would be of much interest to others in the AfD for the topic...thought of just quoting the editor in the AfD but instead asked if he would be interested in posting it himself..please look at the record of my contribution history for that RfC and the AfD...and just look at the record in general please..(turned out too that the editor disagreed with me in the AfD as far as actually "voting" there)..this is my first time looking at "canvassing" or knowing about it really...I can see where people might try to do that but certainly that's nothing along the lines of what I was doing..it says "provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion" and "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics"...I also made people generally aware of the AfD in the RfC too..In any event, can't imagine this required at most more than a warning and a link to "canvassing" and not a block (let alone a 3 day one)68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Pincrete was critical of the article and the wording of your message to him (plus your consequent "You agreed that the article teeters on being a hoax article...but then you vote to keep it without even mentioning the research you've done? what gives") indicates that you messaged him with the expectation that he would vote to delete the article. That's textbook canvassing and it should be common sense to avoid such behavior. The instructions for the AfD process also contain ample reference to WP:CANVASS. Laser brain (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I had copied the editor's remarks in the RfC and was about to paste/quote him in the AfD but decided it would be more courteous to let him decide if he wanted to insert his words and state them how he would like (in case he would get upset for being quoted without permission and making it seem like I was "voting" on his behalf...I'm careful about this..notice the disclaimer I put immediately under the AfD about GBfan)...I did think he would side with deleting the article if he weighed-in as what he had researched and articulated in the RfC was along these lines it certainly seemed (note I just noticed he recently changed to "neutral"). But all of this is obviously good faith activity to improve the Wikipedia..and not the kind of bad faith activity the "canvassing" is addressing..and a block is suppose to be preventive, not punitive...certainly there's no need for a 3 day block for this..a link to "canvassing" would have more than sufficed..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Seriously? You can actually say "But all of this is obviously good faith activity to improve the Wikipedia..and not the kind of bad faith activity the "canvassing" is addressing", in a way which, in the context, unambiguously means "since it was an attempt to get people to support the position which I personally think is right, it therefore is not covered by WP:CANVAS?" And you say that in an unblock request? Having also read all your comments relating to the previous block, I am inclined to think it possible that you may really not understand, rather than that you are trolling, but whichever it is, you are clearly neither showing an awareness of what was wrong with what you were doing nor indicating that you will not do the same again, so unblocking is out of the question. Considering your history, the only thing about the block that might be considered open to question is whether three days will be enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

68.48.241.158 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please read my above unblock requests and the following as clarification: I stated that it was good-faith action; that I hadn't read/wasn't aware of the canvassing page...that a warning and a link to the canvassing page would have been sufficient...certainly I would have then been more careful and will now...I'm very careful about these things...see the disclaimer I put in the AfD right at the beginning about GBfan as far as being very careful about these kinds of things...and I explained too the very reason I alerted him to the AfD is that I was just about to cut and paste his quotes based on his research but decided maybe it was better to let him do that how he'd like...it seems if I would have just cited his quotations instead I wouldn't have run into this issue..so don't understand why a referral to the canvassing page wouldn't have been sufficient...if I would have then done something again that could possibly be construed as canvassing then a block would be in order...This is what I was going to quote from the user, as he had taken the time to look at the sources and discovered that they are problematic (so this is all to help improve the encyclopedia): "The problem is that if you look at the article and the linked 'mains', no such RS description is offered. I spent a whole evening following refs and links, the best I could find were refs to individuals connected to these organisations being racist or supremacist, or tending toward supremacist positions or organisations having 'supremacist or racist wings' to them. Some of the people invoved with these groups are pretty unsavoury, some of the groups' beliefs are faintly 'whacko', but is believing yourself to be the REAL descendents of a tribe of Israel inherently supremacist? I was persuaded on my trawl that there are individuals who have advocated beliefs which have properly been described as 'supremacist' and 'racist', unfortunately, without a great deal of SYNTH and selective quoting, I could not come up with a reasonable case that most of the groups covered in the body of the article had been described as either."68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is moot as the block has now expired on its own. -- GB fan 10:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
please see below (in "block duration thread")...I do get it! and have stated again and again that I get it. I do not understand why Coffee keeps saying I have stated that I don't get it..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

CommentEdit

I have often asked unregistered editors why they don't register. In this case, I do see that it may be in the interests of the human behind the IP address not to register. It appears that the human behind the IP address is not here to maintain the encyclopedia constructively and just wants to be combative. After several blocks, combative registered editors are blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE or for similar reasons. Administrators very seldom hand out long, let alone indefinite, blocks to IP addresses, except for open proxies and similar issues. My comment to the next administrator, when this address comes off block, and is disruptive again, is to consider giving out the longest reasonable block for an IP address. This does appear to be a static IP address. (In the United States, cable companies such as Comcast often assign static IP addresses for various reasons of technical convenience, while telephone providers such as Verizon provide "leased" IP addresses for a number of days.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer the above individual not interact with me on Wikipedia; it appears allowable to ask people to not interact with you/not post on talk page, as I've noticed others do it...I've had problems with him in the past being disruptive toward me...I'd appreciate if you cease doing so...but to others, my hundreds upon hundreds of constructive edits can be looked at (see my work in 'incompleteness theorem,' 'sgt reckless,' all my helpful, constructive posts at the reference desk, my help with "Leon Raper," my recent work in trying to figure out what to do with the problematic article "black supremism" etc etc...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Block DurationEdit

@Coffee: May I ask that you simply shorten the block to one day...considering I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong (see explanation in unblock requests above) and it was a good-faith mistake...I've now become aware of "canvassing" and read the page so it won't be a problem in the future..a warning and a reference to the canvassing article would have achieved the same purpose, I assure you...the block policy for matters like this seem to suggest 1 day (which has now expired) so not sure why it was set at three...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, you got a rather mild block considering this is your fourth block for disruptive behavior. As I mentioned in my decline of one of your unblock requests, it should be common sense to avoid the unethical behavior of trying to influence the result of your AfD, whether or not you claim ignorance of the canvassing policy. The fact remains that you contacted someone you believed would be likely to agree with the article's deletion, and any reasonable person should know better. All of your disruptive behavior revolves around your attempts to relentlessly push your own opinion into the encyclopedia and your refusal to let it go when you can't get your way. It started at George Harrison and has continued everywhere you've chosen to contribute. Your next block is likely to be indefinite and/or a community ban. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
certainly it would be common sense to not go around canvassing to multiple people and be like, "hey, please go vote this way at this AfD." I didn't do that and wouldn't need a policy page to know that...but what happened here in context is certainly quite different...I realize you don't like me because of the George Harrison thing, particularly that I questioned your authority to block me...but I was brand new to editing then and thought a due process via an admin's noticeboard was required, where there would have to be a consensus to block me etc.68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
note too: if asked at the time I contacted him if I would have guessed he'd vote to delete/put article into a draft etc I would certainly have guessed that he would...based on the research he had done and had already articulated about...but my intent/motivation was obviously not to gather together votes in order to "win" or any such thing but to invite him to put the information in the AfD to be helpful to people for the sake of bettering the encyclopedia....68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"I realize you don't like me because of the George Harrison thing" Please refrain from making absurd assumptions and personalizing the issue. I don't feel one way or another about you. I'm here in an administrative capacity to prevent you from disrupting the editing environment here, just like the numerous other admins who have had to spend time dealing with you. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your characterizations of my history on Wikipedia is entirely negative; so why can't I equate that with not liking me? (particularly since you don't bother to reference the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions I've made in just a few months time...from recently "Leon Raper" and "Black Supremacy" to "Area of a disk" to "incompleteness theorem" to 'sgt reckless' the reference desk and on and on...).68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No, but I could lengthen the block to 6 months. Would you prefer that? (I'm not joking. You got off with a relatively mild block - all things considered - and are now continuing to disruptively claim you can't see what you did wrong... That's more than enough ammunition to virtually permanently block you from this site, especially considering your block log.) Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee:What do you mean? I've said that I do get the point..that I didn't know that what I specifically did here was improper...but now I've read this "canvassing" page and will be extra careful about it in the future..there's zero chance of me canvassing in the future..so I very much do get the point..the point is that I get the point!68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Then I suggest you actually show some intention of good faith by politely sitting out this block (which expires at 0643 25 May 2016). Perhaps you should take a step back and think about why there just might be a reason we don't simply take your word for it. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: well, I'd prefer to be unblocked as this has served its purpose, which was basically making me aware of the "canvassing" policy page..and that I should be more careful as what I did can technically be construed as canvassing..and blocks are suppose to be preventive, this block isn't preventing anything at this point...may I ask too why you simply didn't send me a warning and a link to "canvassing" on my talk page, as this would have been sufficient?68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
See now you're doing it again... Did you even read my last sentence in reply to you? Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee:I don't understand you when you say "I'm doing it again"...you said "you don't get it" but clearly I do get it and have stated such..but that's okay, I see I'm not getting anywhere with you so will leave it at that.68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDHT refers to everything we're trying to tell you not just one thing. I said "Perhaps you should take a step back and think about why there just might be a reason we don't simply take your word for it", did you even for a second do this, or even bring it up in your reply? No. That's what I'm talking about. I'm starting to wonder if you have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit this site. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

it's okay, nevermind..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

questionEdit

@Mlpearc: I noticed you did something in the history but can't figure out what you did...and then the summary says "really?" just curious..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

See hereThe Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 09:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
right, but what was he doing? and why did he write "really?"68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
He was removing a flag icon that had no reason to be there; and he was questioning the validity of its original insertion. Hope that clarifies. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
not really, just searched Wikipedia for "flag icon" nothing came up..it appears he removed something from a welcome message..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed he did. A WP:flagicon for Michigan. See the Welcome box at the top of this version of the page, then look next to where it mentions Comcast Communications. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
okay, but why??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was first added here by User:TJH2018, somehow with a Michigan flag in it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
you're not clarifying anything for me...it once had a Michigan flag in the notice (which is where I live) and this person decided to remove that and write "really?" in summary.....???68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's pronbably why he put that flag, because you GeoL there. Maybe it wasn't relevant? See WP:FLAGMOS. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
okay, thanks for the info..I'm still viewing this sequence of events as quite odd...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Why's that? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Basically, I saw in your IP that it said MI, so I know that means Michigan. I didn't have to do an GeoL or anything. Hope this helps. TJH2018talk 14:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's fine...doesn't explain why mlpearc decided to appear out of the blue to remove it and write "really?" in the edit history..just one of those odd things, I guess..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Right; I guess @Mlpearc: probably just thought such a flag icon "should generally be used only when directly relevant", being " rarely recognizable by the general public", and perhaps "detract... from any shorthand utility they might have, as it was not "closely related to the subject." Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And it's entirely bizarre that someone would think this was worth taking the time to do, no?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. On a lighter note, his edit changed this page by 21 bytes; the discussion it led to added thousands! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
{{flagicon}} is not used with {{shared IP}}, my edit summary refers to "I can not believe someone would do that, first time I've seen that, from the horses mouth. Page size is not a regular concern of mine. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ClosureEdit

For what it is worth I did see your note prior to me closing the debate. In fact I did not even notice that it had been reverted until much later. HighInBC 19:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, very good. I firmly believe it was a perfectly allowable contribution (whether GBfan personally cared for it or not) and that his revert was, therefore, inappropriate. I apologize if my assumption about the time between the notice and the closure was erroneous. I disagree with your decision to not remove this from the public space (though perhaps the number of keep votes, though many poorly reasoned and superficial, tied your hands)..Wikipedia is only as good its contributors and I think in the case of this AfD as far as the 'voters' there were simply too many poor contributors..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the article will get improved; just give it time. I believe there are enough editors that are interested in getting it into reasonable shape. Have faith! :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblock discussionsEdit

You are not helping the IP by giving your interpretation of policy. This block has been given extensive review through your noticeboard posting and several unblock reviews and have been found to be correct over and over. This user will do very well here if they learn from their mistakes, you do them a disservice by suggesting the block was against policy. Please do not misinform users, it is disruptive. HighInBC 03:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

the affair involved yet again less than stellar admin activity so I'm happy to have brought it to people's attention..it's an illustrative case..68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Bringing it to peoples attention is fine, just don't interfere with the newbies. You are taking a routine behavioural issue and adding unnecessary heat. Shine a light on whatever perceived faults you see in the unblocking procedure but do so without involving blocked users. It is not fair for you to involve their situation in your pet project. HighInBC 03:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
again, you make no sense and demonstrate poor competence...I can't discuss things and "shine light" without them being informed anyway...68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
If you think I am out of line you can take me to a noticeboard. However I will suggest before you do that that you consider that your previous attempts to do that have shown your interpretation of things is often wrong. Discouraging newbies is very damaging to the project and will not be tolerated.
I get that you are on some sort of mission to make some point about admins, but do so without being disruptive. Especially to our new users. HighInBC 14:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
discouraging newbies says the admin (who at least has been) part of the gratuitious blocking group of said newbie...your nonsense is still a little funny but I'm growing bored with it..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We are working to bring this user back with a greater understanding of what is expected of them. You are the one telling them to give up. I am not going to argue this point, don't use newbies to make your point or you will be blocked for disruption. HighInBC 14:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"we are working to bring this user back.." oh sure, there's an accurate statement of what has been transpiring...why are you removing comments from his talkpage just because you don't like them (that is not allowable)...remove your 'grain of salt' post (which is a criticism of me) or reinstate my criticism of you...you are totally out of line...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome to seek greater scrutiny of my behaviour if you think I am out of line. If I am found wrong by the community I will accept that, until then leave the newbies alone. HighInBC 14:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016Edit

  Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:68.48.241.158. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. It is true that we are allowed a certain latitude on *our* own talk pages; but WP:CIVIL is a pillar to abide by. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 14:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I do assume good faith but I am not required to continue assuming good faith after many, many troubling interactions with the same editor...please show where assume good faith must last forever...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  As the note at the top of closed/archived comments states, do not make further alterations or edits to closed/archived discussions. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the edit window open and was writing the comment apparently when that person closed it..it wasn't closed when I began writing the comment..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well at least you know going forward then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANIEdit

Starting threads on ANI is best avoided, if possible. The other editor could read your comment in the page history, so it probably isn't worth fighting over, one way or the other. In any event, if you make further posts it'd be helpful if you'd use wikilink syntax. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:108.162.157.141] (renders as [2]) instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:108.162.157.141. NE Ent 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

yes, I'll try to learn and use the syntax as apparently it's important to people...it's certainly less messy looking, I suppose...yes, ANI should be avoided because it's a disaster but ideally it would function properly and when people do improper things they would be quickly corrected..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And it would work even better if people didn't report every nick and scrape and left it for the real problems. BMK (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016Edit

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
  • Blocking admin comment - This was the edit that broke the camels back. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering our history, Coffee, and the recent thread I initiated at ANI about you and Laser Brain this action by you is utterly inappropriate...particularly since I'm on record believing there are serious problems with Wikipedia admins and have been doing research and looking into solving these problems via proposals...people are watching my page...I would expect even after our problems even HighInBC (as he originally volunteered to monitor you and Laser Brain) to step in here and admonish you for this....there are others watching too...you are embarrassing yourself and degrading respect for Wikipedia...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath. HighInBC 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
true, I certainly no better than to hold my breath based on past experience...I'm very proud of my work on Wikipedia, however...and I have made some things happen that will have permanence..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) + (Non-administrator comment) IP, can you please explain what you are trying to get out of all this? The edit that Coffee pointed out clearly indicates that you are WP:NOTHERE, and also as Coffee mentioned in your blocking statement, you have not participated in little to no content work. Complaining and exclaiming that all admins admins are "not competent" will get you nowhere, as is clearly seen through your block record. When your blocking period has expired, or if an administrator decides to unblock you after you've made a legitimate unblock request, I highly suggest that you contribute to the encyclopedia instead of persistently nagging at ANI and other noticeboards. Vensco (T / C) 19:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And now you're doing it again... "to step in here and admonish you for this", "there are others watching too", "you are embarrassing yourself and degrading respect for Wikipedia" is not going to get you anywhere. No only are you nagging now, but are now considered as personal attacks/harassment. Vensco (T / C) 19:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

See new thread below too please (and just noticed erroneous statement about 'no content work' see below for explanation or just carefully review my history if you want to take the time..okay, think that really is about all)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussionsEdit

Please don't make WP:ANI reports such as these.... This completely wastes other editor's time and it puts the other IP on the spot which is not fair to them. Reporting at ANI is only for bad-faith editing, which this is clearly not. Please rethink your actions and what you are doing before posting them to ANI, as this was very rude and completely unnecessary... Vensco (T / C) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Help from othersEdit

Please see my post above under recent block too...I believe other editors (even ones I've disagreed with and challenged) have the dignity to right this wrong...if not, I won't be back to Wikipedia...I will not myself be making a formal unblock request...it's been interesting to help fix "incompleteness theorem" which was my only initial interest...and then learn about and see some problems in how Wikipedia is operating..but some things may simply be a lost cause...there are some good editors here like "CBM' and 'SemanticMantis'...take care...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, according to the way you've framed the "problem", it is indeed a "lost cause", so there's really no need for you to stick around. Since your content work was minimal, and your disruptiveness in Wikipedia space was considerable, I'd say that would be a win/win for everybody. BMK (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd bet my 'content' work was higher than the mean..but I certainly view doing some research and making potentially beneficial proposals as being as important or more than 'content' work...I'm probably not going to argue about this or address it anymore beyond this..I've said what I've said above..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
If you're under the impression that "doing research" (whatever the hell that is) and "making proposals" is more important than actually building the encyclopedia, your priorities are totally wring (albeit shared by some other editors): there is nothing more important to Wikipedia than building the encyclopedia, period, full stop, end of sentence. And I have no idea what the "mean" is, or how it would figure into this discussion (since hundreds of "editors" make no edits or only a handful), but I can tell you 74 article edits out of 1500 total -- less than 5% -- is positively abysmal. I assure you that an editor whose "contributions" are on that level will not be much missed.
Essentially, what you've admitted to here is that you are basically a very sophisticated troll. BMK (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
A. researching and making proposals to improve the process is part of "building the encyclopedia"...B. a lot of my edits are on reference desk, help desk etc, RfC/AfD I created...C. in relation to "black supremacy" for example I couldn't directly edit the article as an IP but all of the recent changes to the article are directly related to me getting the ball rolling with the AfD and on the talkpage...and on and on..I created a change on "Jesus" just today via the talkpage...your description is simply false....(that really is all I'll say on that subject and is my last response to you)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I AM glad that YOU are satisfied with your editing. What an asset you are! BMK (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Good block - Just hours ago, I mentioning how you were headed towards another block with the way you were acting, yet, like usual, you completely disregarded what I, and anyone else said to you, and here we are. The problem is that you fight everyone, every step of the way, always certain that you somehow know things better that everyone else. Like I've mentioned from the beginning, if you want to make big changes to something, you need to understand the current status before you can hope to propose working solutions. You need to understand what you're changing before you change it. But you've refused, and as such, at worst, people think (or know) that you're WP:NOTHERE, and at best, you've merely been misguided and made zero progress convincing anyone. If you come back after the block, I hope you'll handle yourself very differently. (Pro-tip - It's only irritating people when keep throwing out all these "This is why Wikipedia is doomed" comments every time things don't go your way. It comes off as sour grapes and insincere concern.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

HiEdit

Hi, I actually planned to discuss with you after I was unblocked on the PROPER channel to go to ask for review on admin's action, but you have gotten yourself blocked. I have some advice for you. Fighting admins the way you are doing now won't do any good. I suggest that you submit a proper unblock request and then use proper channels instead of openly accusing admins for conspiring, incompetence etc. as it won't be helpful to anyone. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, 108...best of luck to you..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Your advice is good, but don't count on 68.48 taking it, as it appears he's happy to play the martyr. BMK (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

@Jimbo Wales: I'm suggesting you or a deputy of yours look into my account and its entire activity and what has transpired with it...It would require significant time to get a proper sense of what has transpired..a brief, superficial glance will not likely result in a proper understanding of the disturbing activity of several admins and the damage they are doing to Wikipedia, and which they'll likely continue to do in the future...I'd like absolutely everything to be looked at but please pay particular attention to my blocks, my recent Admin Noticeboards threads relating to my blocks and the blocks of others, my recent proposals relating to admin transparency at village pump etc, and the behavior of "Coffee" and "HighInBC" relating to me. Significant benefits to the Wikipedia project would likely result if the time is taken to do this. And best of luck with Wikipedia in general..Sincerely, 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I imagine he has his notifications turned off. I don't know why. Muffled Pocketed 13:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
who would you suggest I ping in regards to people perhaps close to him at the foundation etc if he doesn't get pings?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
If you really want to contact him, you can email him directly, not that it is advisable. If you really want to, nobody can stop you. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"If you really want to shoot yourself in the ass, you can go out and buy a handgun and bullets and shoot yourself in the ass, not that it is advisable. If you really want to, nobody can stop you." Ya know, some things are just better off unsaid. BMK (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
If the founder of the project is not available would you like us to notify Obama to look into this for you? HighInBC 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
no, the founder or one of his "deputies" (ie people he works closely with/trusts etc)...but thanks for demonstrating your continued unprofessionalism with the above post..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage access removedEdit

In light of the posts you've made since the block, I've removed talkpage access for the duration of this block. When editors are blocked, we allow talkpage access to allow them to challenge the block or discuss what elements of their conduct need to change, not to vent about how everyone who has reviewed your block is involved in a conspiracy, explain why your own view of the purpose of Wikipedia is superior to what every other Wikipedia editor has considered its purpose since its foundation, or complain that you want to speak to "Jimmy Wales's deputy" (a non-existent position, and Jimbo explicitly has no authority over blocks on English Wikipedia).

If you do want to appeal the block, follow the instructions at WP:UTRS, but you will need to demonstrate that you understand why you've been blocked and that you'll avoid a repeat of the conduct which has led to all your previous blocks. You're welcome to take part in Wikipedia once your block expires, but you need to understand that the rest of Wikipedia exists solely as a support mechanism for the production of article content, and that I view doing some research and making potentially beneficial proposals as being as important or more than 'content' work is an attitude that is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's aims and objectives. As has been said elsewhere, your next block is almost certainly going to be a permanent community ban, so if you do want to take part in Wikipedia once your block expires, you'll need to comply with Wikipedia's rules and practices regardless of whether you agree with them. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm just an editor and an observer to this point, but I want to disagree with part of the above. I don't think that the attitude of I view doing some research and making potentially beneficial proposals as being as important or more than 'content' work is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. I've made a couple thousand edits at this point, and a few substantial ones have come easily because of some user who gathered info and ideas and shared them on the talk page for others who wanted to do the actual editing. Some editors enjoy editing, but don't have time to do all the research necessary to make substantial edits. An individual who decides to prioritize research and talk-page proposals isn't harmful to Wikipedia, so long as there are other editors around to turn useful proposals into effective edits. But to be clear, that's assuming ideal and helpful behavior from a contributor, and I agree that's not what what we're seeing here.
    To 68.48: As several others have tried to point out to you on here, if more than a few different users/admins all come out against you on something, you have to learn to let it go. That's something I had to learn at the beginning, I violated WP:3RR and a few other rules in my early days. I was so sure I was "right" and that if I just kept fighting, I'd get others to see it. That did not work out for me. You know what did work out? Taking a step back, putting my ego aside for long enough to learn how other Wikipedians react to edits and proposals and other users' behavior, and gradually re-introducing myself as a more strategic contributor. I make more edits with far fewer reverts now, and I got here by learning how to behave like an effective contributor. If what you care most about is the contribution, then that's just what you have to do. I am a hopeless optimist, which is why I'm sincerely offering you advice when you could be labeled a lost cause by now. If you really aren't just trolling the crap out of everyone, the best thing for you (and for Wikipedia) is take your lumps, wait out your current block, and then carefully spend some time learning how to contribute without pissing off other contributors or admins. If you can't do that, well, I'll support permanently banning you too. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

AN/IEdit

I don't think the AN/I is failing. At the moment there is consensus for warn and/or 1RR, and once the editors that commented earlier in favor of 1RR or neutral about it will return (it's early morning in the US, where most editors are from) my guess is many of them if not all of them will support civility restrictions. Don't single out people because you don't like them. Furry-friend (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

it is acceptable to criticize the behavior of other editors so long as one doesn't engage in personal attacks/become uncivil...if one couldn't criticize the behavior of other editors then I mean what could ever be accomplished....??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It's off-topic. If you want to discuss the AN/I process itself, you probably should use WT:POLICY (or perhaps WT:AN/I). Using the discussion to discuss the discussion... it quickly gets off-topic. Furry-friend (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016Edit

  Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Close_proposal, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Muffled Pocketed 13:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
did you perhaps mean to post this to your own talk page as a message/reminder to yourself?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think he believes your comment on the AN/I is off-topic... which it is. Better to let it go. Furry-friend (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm The Herald. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Questioning the constructiveness of your edits againEdit

I'm getting the vibe that you're just editing to stir up trouble and get people riled up again. I'm having a hard time finding your edits as constructive. Judging by what I've seen, and the comments on your talk page, it looks like you either just drag things off topic, or write things to get people riled up. Why are you repeatedly saying Unconstructive vague comments in the background, like "this guys got issues", even after the issue had been resolved? Why are you advising experienced admin on how to go about blocking experienced editors? (Not only was it poor advice, it seems to run contrary to your other campaign around here, about how you don't like how non-admin address issues at ANI, ironically.) What are you doing here? Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm primarily working on articles, like today "incompleteness theorem" and "Diagonal argument" but I've certainly taken an interest in the process too, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_few_problems_with_Wikipedia 68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it seems that has devolved into the same issues as your prior discussions - people questioning the logistics the requirements you want to place on volunteers, people questioning your motives, you acting like your some sort of martyr fighting against the evil status quo, people pointing out that you're 5 blocks in. Outside of the fact that you're no longer posting things in wrong/dead venues like ANI's talk page, pretty similar to the state of things before any of your first five blocks... Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
that's certainly a most uncharitable way of viewing it..though you are entitled to your opinion..you'll discover, for example, that the "jury duty" idea the thread helped bring forth is being discussed by a few of the editors on one of their talk pages..but, indeed, I'm done bringing forth proposals through the established, internal channels...changes would have to be brought forth from the outside via the foundation, etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I certainly have had problems with this editor's behavior and am responsible for blocking them once, but I don't believe WP:NOTHERE applies. I do think they are here to make improvements to the encyclopedia, but have just failed to find very many ways to do so without getting caught up in the machinery. 68, I'd recommend you stick to content improvement (avoiding the WP:STICK problems you've had) and not join the peanut gallery popping in to make inane comments at various noticeboards. Otherwise, I think the next place you're headed is an indef block or community ban. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it can be construed as a bit more of a WP:STICK/WP:IDHT/WP:DE issue, but regardless, we both seem to agree that 68 is not going about things the right way, and is heading towards a sixth (and very likely final) block at this rate. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
my only real interest is "incompleteness theorem" as I'm mostly fascinated by how misunderstood it is (even by advanced math types)..so like to watch that article/help make sure it's accurate...I edited that article a bit probably 10 years ago but then was too busy in the interim for Wikipedia...the reference desk is a little interesting sometimes, but there are some obnoxious hyper-regulars there who make it almost unbearable..and then random things will catch my eye, like I'll ask a question at the help desk and another question will catch my eye..like a question about the Harvard article recently...I can't particularly try to make proposals to better Wikipedia from inside Wikipedia because you two and several others will take an immediate, aggressive interest in opposing me etc..and I'm powerless due to the design/culture of the system..I have no WP "friends"..you could block me and revoke my talk page access right now and no one would ever know about it..even the two or three editors who basically "own" incompleteness theorem don't particularly like me as I'm stepping onto their territory but they respect me because they know I'm often right, so they make changes based on my suggestions etc (as they do genuinely care about the accuracy of the article)..I firmly believed that one admin was going to block me for making that post on Wales' page but I think even he realized it would have been the irony of all ironies and was too embarrassed to do it in front of the founder...

yes, that one ANI thread caught my eye as it appeared so bizarre..my final post was trying to suggest the person is an obvious vandal/incompetent so a short block is probably futile...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been casually following the incompleteness theorem article since you started editing it, though I have no understanding of the topic and nothing to offer. I did, however, engage a Cornell mathematician about it and he has some interesting perspectives on the current content. I've been trying to encourage him to participate. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
that would certainly be a good thing.68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal AttacksEdit

How dare you mischaracterize another editor in this manner?![3] Don't even think about doing that again. Doc talk 10:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

move along, please..and do not censor me in that thread..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Doc. That comment was racist, rude, demeaning and, most of all, unwarranted. If you actually that it's okay to call out a user in such a way, please disengage yourself from Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a way to use your tools and attack users. You had genuine concerns about Wikipedia, but you're making it and yourself worse. If you make another personal attack, you will be reported, per the warning below. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
it was criticizing the racism of another, please see the ANI thread I've just created on this and comment there, not here..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doc talk 11:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Declaring that another editor has an "inherently racist attitude" is, again, a clear personal attack. It's not "censorship" to remove it. Doc talk 11:49, 15 July 2016

(UTC)

but the person is allowed to be inherently racist (and vulgar etc) and not be criticized for it...whatever..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016Edit

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Help PleaseEdit

@NeilN: can you please examine what happened with the above block (from the ANI thread I recently initiated)...you seem to be among the very few reasonable admins I've come across. thank you.68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe you only got off with only 31 hours considering you block log. I would have blocked far longer. Especially since I had just warned you about unconstructive comments at ANI. As did another editor before me. Sergecross73 msg me 12:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I have never made an unconstructive comment at ANI. And your opinions should be viewed as irrelevant due to COI considering our history of involvement with each other...prefer to not interact with you so move along from my talkpage unless you absolutely have to be here, please..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, citing WP:COI makes absolutely no sense. You probably mean WP:UNINVOLVED, and even that doesn't make sense, as it would hypothetically prevent me from taking administrative action against you (blocking, page protecting, etc), not voicing my opinion on you. Honestly, months go by, and you can't even cite the very basics correctly. And then you're shocked when your big ideas/proposals get shot down for not being plausible, or your comments being unconstructive. And all the Admin are somehow the bad guys. Unbelievable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Everyone who disagrees with you has a COI and some 'history' with you? That's probably because your actions persistently attract negative attention from almost everyone you encounter here. Don't you think, if you're driving towards Beachy Head you should probably take your foot off the accelerator?! Muffled Pocketed 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no one will see the relevance of Serge's comment. On account of the COI. Doc talk 12:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Despite multiple warnings, you continued making personal attacks, so I really don't understand why you are feigning surprise and innocence here. In the circumstances, I think I was being very lenient with only a 31-hour block, as your block log and this talk page (which are clearly all you even if this is an IP page) would have justified a significantly longer block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
31 hours seems too lenient to me. The IP does not appear to be a net positive to the encyclopedia nor learning from prior mistakes.Tazerdadog (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
personal attack=substantive criticism of the assertions explicitly made in the thread by "swarm"???? (which are inherently racist in themselves, btw..and is an "attack" on the assertions, not the person) okay, then..I won't bother to go look but just assume you blocked "swarm" (who is an admin apparently) for his actual personal attacks, which included "what the fuck is wrong with you" etc directed toward another editor..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
As you are continuing to make the same personal attacks here after being blocked for it, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. If you continue after the block expires, expect a significantly longer block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Repeatedly putting Swarm in "scare quotes", as if they are not an editor to be "taken seriously", reinforces the bad attitude of this individual. There are other stylistic quirks that will help identify other accounts that may have been operated by them. I do not for a second believe that this is their first account, nor do I believe that they have not been in trouble before for the same reasons. Doc talk 12:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's very likely that you're right about that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting his name in " " Muffled Pocketed 13:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
^troll comment.68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll add a little advice here too, which I expect you probably don't want but I think it would benefit you anyway. In the very short time since you started editing here in February from this IP address, you have fallen into numerous disputes, have been blocked five times, and two of those times you had your talk page access removed - and your warnings and blocks have come from a wide variety of people. So please, stop and ask yourself - is it really everybody else who is wrong and you always right, or is there a problem with your attitude towards others and your approach to collegial interaction? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My two cents: At this point, your editing history is working against you. Because of all your blocks, people are going to interpret any kind of iffy statement of yours in the worst possible way. I think you have two choices: 1) Realize this and keep this in mind going forward. Discuss content and ideas and refrain from calling anyone out. 2) Look at WP:CLEANSTART. Register an account and work on uncontroversial content for a while to get a feel about how Wikipedia can work when you're not constantly embroiled in arguments. BTW, your ping did not work. The ping and a signature have to be added in the same post. --NeilN talk to me 13:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

CivilityEdit

  Greetings. Some of your recent edits do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

go away from my talk page forever. Also, please read the WP:COMPETENCE PAGE. Goodbye.68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016Edit

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
  • Your block just expired, and you immediately started making personal attacks again, for example here and here. You were very fortunate that your previous block was so lenient, and this block now represents an escalation based on the length of your earlier blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Help again from NeilN and others.Edit

^@NeilN: please see the absurdity that has now played out above/correct this totally out of line admin and see my recent post to "Jimbo Wales" talkpage that exactly anticipated this. You couldn't make this stuff up.. Thank you.68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of "Discuss content and ideas and refrain from calling anyone out" was unclear. --NeilN talk to me 19:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: I asked a person who has been trolling me to stay away from my talkpage (who trollingly and knowingly made a bad-faith accusation of me being a "sock" that couldn't possibly be construed as making any sense)...I have a right to do that...I did not make a "personal attack" according to any guidelines...Please show some class and independence and undue what Boing just did....and see my recent post at Jimbo too which exactly relates to this...Thank you for your time...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
As you are continuing to make attacks on other editors, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. See WP:UTRS if you wish to appeal further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
And as a side note, I feel you need to be reminded once again that this is a private website, and that you have no rights here. At all. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)