User talk:Duikelmaan

bloodoffox how does one book, Painted Black, get an entire section while Carl Raschke's two dozen other books get no mention. How are you not abusing your powers here? Would love to hear your thoughts.

January 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Carl Raschke, you may be blocked from editing.

You have received and acknowledged (by removing them from this page) two warnings for this already, which is why this is a more severely worded warning. bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing slanderous text vandalism? Please explain.

Your recent editing history at Carl Raschke 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. bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User:Bloodofox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. bonadea contributions talk 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Please explain how Bloodoffox can edit Carl raschke's page, but her page can't be touched? I am shocked that this woman can vandalize a reported professor, but cannot be touched.[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 ~~~~}}. m.o.p 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying to your emails here.

You were blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and a marked lack of civility. Your apparent belief that you have the right to defame other editors in the first person simply because of edits they've made is misplaced. We have so many policies on civility that it's hard to pick from any one in particular, but the basic premise is no personal attacks - ever. Of course, that's not the only reason you were blocked, just the most egregious one (see WP:3RR, WP:DE); doesn't help that you did that all while accusing an editor of vandalism.
Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, so crusading to defend one won't get you anywhere but where you are right now. If this point requires clarification, please, do say so.
If you're actually concerned with the 'cyber-bullying [of] an elderly professor', I suggest you read our policy on living persons before continuing onward.

You are free to edit your talk page while blocked. If you've any further questions, I'd suggest leaving them here, as I will not reply by e-mail. Best, m.o.p 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)§[reply]

I just looked over the page you suggested and see that bloodoffox breaks almost every single rule, it is not neutral and it is not balanced. She is breaking your biggest rules, yet she is allowed to remain an editor. That sounds a bit like you protecting a cyber-bully. Anything you'd like to say to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duikelmaan (talk • contribs) 2016-01-20T06:49:43‎

I'd suggest dropping the 'cyber-bully' nonsense while you're still able to, as all it's really doing is making me consider lengthening your block.

And no, Bloodofox is not breaking BLP rules. The sourcing, neutrality and verifiability of the contested section is more than adequate. m.o.p 07:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd punish me more because I'm suggesting cyber-bullying? Is that normal protocol? Is that a threat? I have copied this, your response, and your photo BTW which you took down yesterday. Why did you take your photo down just after our conversation?

Mistaking repeated accusations for mere 'suggestion' also won't get you anywhere. I'd advise you stop digging that hole.

I congratulate you on your ability to copy information, but I'd suggest spending your time on more worthwhile endeavours. Let me know if you have any further questions about your block. Best, m.o.p 07:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So were you threatening me or suggesting a threat? Can you explain the difference? You advise me to stop digging that hole. Why? And you still haven't answered my question. The Talk page is filled with people who have proven Boodoffox wrong, yet they have all been blocked except for bloodoffox? This sounds a bit like a gang protecting itself. First you have the bullying, then the rape, the gang circling in on itself, then threatening anyone who speaks out. How do you feel about this?

Quick question. Do you understand the debate going on and can you give me your interpretation of it? Also have you seen that one of your administrators, Stuart Yeates is in agreement? Do you take these things into consideration with your ban?

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}.

m.o.p 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I advised you to stop digging your hole to save us both the trouble. Since you're still grinding away at your axe, I have extended your block to two weeks.

My interpretation of the event is irrelevant in this case; it helps me stay unbiased.

Now, I ask again; stop pushing your vendetta. Focus on content, not editors. If you continue using this talk page in this fashion, I will extend the block indefinitely and revoke your talk page access.

Since I'm sure there's an inevitable 'why' hanging in the future:

You were edit warring.
You personally attacked another editor.
You have a very large conflict of interest.
You have not stopped targeting bloodofox and are weaving grandiose tales of conspiracy and 'protection'.

You are welcome to address these issues, apologize, and tell us why you will not repeat this behaviour in the future. That would be my recommended option. As stated above, your current behaviour will result in stricter consequences.

Thank you, m.o.p 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have extended my punishment for two weeks for asking perfectly legitimate questions? I will use this fully. Thank you. If I ask you if you think this process is democratic or authoritarian, you will suspend me indefinitely? But if I apologize you will lift my ban? Is this Putin I'm speaking with? I want to thank you for this. I couldn't have made this up if I wanted to.

The notion that your questions are 'perfectly legitimate' is concerning. Final warning - one more strike and your block will be extended indefinitely and your talk page access disabled. Best, m.o.p 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm very, very, very sorry? I am bowing in submission. Is this acceptable? Last quick question. Very, very sorry. Who in Wikipedia can I ask how exactly do you know that I have a conflict of interest and to let them know that, to this user, that knowledge sounds very threatening from your end?

February 2016[edit]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Jpgordon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please explain exactly what you mean by "You'll be hearing from us soon". bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]