User talk:RunedChozo

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello RunedChozo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects at Little Green Footballs

Hi. I wonder whether you saw my note at Talk:Little Green Footballs#Redirects. To test what I wrote there, go to http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/ or http://www.jewschool.com/index.php?p=7717 and click on a link to LGF. You'll end up at http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/homepage.asp?clr=1&sl=HE&id=-8888&force=1 (unless you have disabled HTTP referers in your web browser). Note that it's been some time since these sites attacked LGF, so we can conclude that those redirects are permanent measures, not short-term fixes.

I've done some web searches. The best source I've come up with is http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/2003/10/lgf-under-scrutiny-charles-johnson.html, which is unacceptable because it calls LGF "rabid racists". The only LGF article I've found which says much about redirects is http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17109, which is only tangentially about redirects from "enemy" websites.

This is why I prefer my version of the sentence about redirects ("Johnson has configured his website ..."). Would you mind taking a look at this issue and letting me know what you think? (I'll watch this page for at least a week, so I'll see any questions or comments you put here.)

An aside: I personally don't like this redirection trick (there's an obnoxious Australian blogger who uses it a lot), but I do like Charles' choice of destination. Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours, for moving Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre to Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. There's a massive warning on the top of the article, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page to which you contributed, you referred to WP:ANI where I placed a notice of the warning, and still you chose to move the article, despite any consensus. You didn't even bring it up beforehand. Yes, we have WP:NPOV. But we also have common sense. You ignored the warnings and thereby continued an ongoing move war. Add to that the tensions that every article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict already faces. You should have been more cautious. This single-handed move does not benefit the article or wikipedia. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things I would like to say regarding your unblock request. I will obviously not review the request itself, because that's not the way the review process works.

I have said on the article's page that I will block anyone who moves the article before consensus has been reached. I explicitly said "Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title." Because I can't judge the intentions, despite assuming good faith, I can only judge actions. Under the current circumstances (the move war the article is undergoing, the tensions related to articles about the conflict in the Middle East in general, etc.), I believe you should not have moved the page yourself, but contacted either the admin's noticeboard or an admin individually.

I do not refuse to respond to you. But I haven't received a message on my talk page (which is obvious, because this account is blocked), I haven't received an e-mail, you didn't reply to the above notice on this user talk page afaict, so I don't know what to respond to. The only thing I can respond to is the unblock request, which is what I'm now doing.

I would also like to ask the admin reviewing this unblock request to review the block of Burgas00 (talk · contribs) as well. He/she was blocked for the same action on the same article, following the same warning, etc. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're refusing to respond to my email and if you claim you left me one, you lied. I put it back because someone was blocked for moving it and the admin who posted said they didn't want to be the one who put it back because they didnt want to appear involved, so I did it as a favor to them to put things the way they were supposed to be. I'm supposed to be bold and do things to make wikipedia better mmkay?RunedChozo 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just checked my mailbox again, and I can say in all honesty that I have not received an e-mail from you. You claim you have sent me one, and I believe you when you say you have. But apparently it hasn't arrived. And how can I respond to an e-mail that doesn't arrive? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that I am convinced that you acted with the best of intentions and that you have probably become a victim of your own kindness. But a final warning is a final warning. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to positively contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility. While I'm sure it isn't your intent, the tone and nature of your comments are not in line with the aforementioned policies, and as someone who agrees with some of you positions, I feel that violating those policies only serves to undermine your arguments. Tewfik^Talk 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far before you are just being a fool; nothing these people are doing indicates they are acting in good faith or trying to adhere to NPOV policies. It might stretch the bounds of civility to say that out loud, but to let them get away with pretending otherwise is far worse for Wikipedia. RunedChozo 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game)

The plot section is back, and I'd like to ask you not to remove it again. It is certainly not vandalism, as you claim. It is an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Yes, it needs rewriting, and yes, only those who have played the game know whether it's accurate or not. But until someone who has played the game comes along and rewrites it to make it look better, I think we should let it stand. It's better than nothing. --Herald Alberich 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fancruft" refers to information that is only of interest to devoted fans. A plot section, on the other hand, is a well-established component of most video game articles. The basic plot of a game is surely worthy of note on an encyclopedia article about the game, no? And with all respect to you, how do you know it's inaccurate? The only reason I imagine you could make that claim is if you've played the game, or otherwise know what the actual plot is, which means you could add it yourself. Not knowing the plot myself, I'm not going to do anything one way or another, but when someone who does know (and can write well) comes along, I would think it'd be easier to improve a bad section than create a new one. --Herald Alberich 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

agf

Bro, i did not even know the name of the village, i just saw on tv that Israel had killed some large bunch of people and i wanted to make an article about it, just check the name i choose when i created the article.

And no, i have not contact with all the guys in the guild, because one or some of them knew of the article does not mean that i had any idea of it. In fact, i was not even aware that the guys whose name i do not remember is a part of the guild.

As said, i did not even knew the name of the village, i figured it out as i research for my article, i went to the villages article to link to my article from there, and i there discovered that it already linked to another article on the same topic. I looked at its history, and i discovered that it was created prior to my article, so i added merge tags.

And that is all, no dark conspiracy, no contact with guild member, no contacting others regarding the afd. I don't care if you believe me or not, not one bit. I just wrote it since i felt i would appreciate the information if i was in your shoes. --Striver 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"i just saw on tv that Israel had killed some large bunch of people" - and you believe everything you see on TV, without any research into the actual context, no doubt.

Look. I don't trust you for a minute. You created a POV fork when there was already obviously another article on the same thing. I don't believe for a moment that you didn't know it existed. I'm not assuming good faith again until you show some and stop trying to blatantly POV push. The proper thing for you to do would be to admit it was a fork, support its deletion, and THEN if you want to see the items added to the other article, argue for their inclusion on the talk page. Some of the comments I might support. Some of the crap you wrote is blatant POV and has no place on Wikipedia at all.

By trying to push this "merge" thing, what you are doing is trying to shoehorn obviously POV content into an article that others are working very hard to keep to NPOV standards. I've watched the commentary by your friends, who are all about making the article as blatantly anti-Israel as possible. That is bad faith, I say you are working in bad faith, and I'm going to say so until you demonstrate otherwise, because your conduct till now is well beyond the bounds of AGF. RunedChozo 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (also posted to user:Striver's talk page)

Removing your comments was an accident

Sorry that was a mistake. I was reverting vandalism by another user. Thanks for informing me.Hkelkar 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, honest mistakes happen :) RunedChozo 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Solicitation

Please do not solicit other users' opinion on an Articles for Deletion debate, as you did here.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] It is considered canvassing, and you can be blocked for it. As such, the AfD debate in question may be voided because of these actions. Please do not do it again - repeat attempts at creating a false sense of concensus may end up with you being blocked. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting: all of these people were voters on the previous AFD in question and the AFD I was directing them to was clearly created in bad faith. I also noted it on WP:ANI to request Speedy Keep as you no doubt noticed. RunedChozo 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, welcome and thanks for the notification. If you find serious violations, there are proper places to report them. I think all of us would benefit if our rhetoric is toned down and we keep it cool. Let's try to keep this project encyclopedic. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: This edit

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm at it, the edit summary for this edit isn't particularly courteous, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Sorry, didn't realize the edit summary was a section header, rather than a comment. THe first example still stands, though; it's not nice to call someone an ignoramus, even if they're doing something stupid. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not a problem, it was just intended as a gentle reminder. I've certainly been there before; we all have good days and bad ones. -17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When you add a new section to a talk page, please use the + tab at the top of the page

You created a new section in User talk:Hit bull, win steak‎ by editing the last section. This was a no-no as it told me you edited a section I was interested in. You can use the + tab to create a new section in talk pages (and some others like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)). Thanks. Yankees76 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, article PlayStation Portable

The recent edits I made to PlayStation Portable were not of a destructive nature. All of my edits were positive and designed to improve readability, improve grammar, correct spelling mistakes, achieve a neutral point of view, and to remove frivolous sentences and paragraphs. Remember to assume good faith when on Wikipedia. - ZakuSage 21:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whole sections were deleted because they were more appropriately placed within other sections, they contained far too much irrelevant information, or did little other then to advertise for software and hardware. If you took the time to actually compare the relevant versions[10], you'd see that the article has become shorter and more readable, and all the essential information remains intact. Please remember to use the "Compare Selected Versions" feature to check the differences between multiple edits before reverting positive edits. - ZakuSage 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

I have been trying to improve the article PlayStation Portable, and your reverting is not helping. All you are doing is hindering things, and begging for a 3RR blocking. - ZakuSage 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of such reverts can be seen in the following: [11] [12] [13] [14] - ZakuSage 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop damaging the page and discuss your proposed edits first and quit being a dick. RunedChozo 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you explain what exactly you take issue with rather than removing good faith and mostly productive edits? You have just as much obligation to explain your reverts as ZakuSage does to explain his edits. -- mattb @ 2006-11-16T16:17Z

Please read and understand WP:NPA if you want to avoid being blocked for disruption. -- mattb @ 2006-11-16T16:20Z

PS3

If you had looked at the History of the page you would have seen an edit made by me emediatly after my edit. reverting my version to last version by a Bot. London UK 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

agreed. However the reason u gave for deleting it was wrong. --Guzman ramirez 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[15] made on November 16 2006 to Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

The WP:NPA don't help either.

William M. Connolley 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

... and immediately went back to reverting, only minutes after this one expired. Blocked for another 3 days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

It is a very important article and we could use your help on it. Arrow740 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will when I can, the POV pushers on Islamic subjects seem to like playing games around here and I'm temporarily blocked. RunedChozo 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

testRunedChozo 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked too. I lost my cool on that article for a little while. Can we perhaps petition that members of Religion X recuse themselves from decisions to block editors critical of Religion X, for all X? Also, I've proposed these guidelines [16] for work on the article, and I've asked that people weigh in. Would you mind? Arrow740 10:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Arrow740, please assume good faith. do you know what your accusation means? --Aminz 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion, as members of religion X (where religion X happens to be called Islam) tend to freely abuse their ability to harm other editors around here. RunedChozo 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mdf

This user is incivilly removing warnings from his talk page. RunedChozo 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is close to harassment. I suggest you stop it. There is nothing listed in Wikipedia:Civility that prevents an editor removing non-vandalism related warnings from their talk page. You have asked a user to respect WP:NPOV and once is enough. If a user is being truly uncivil, then report them to an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Since this is a clearly a point of view dispute, seek mediation or arbitration. Do not escalate tensions by badgering someone. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many instances of users being warned, and even blocked, for removing non-vandalism-related warnings, especially related to civility. In this you are mistaken. RunedChozo 19:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith by admin

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Block duration extends beyond all stated policy and was clearly intended by friend of POV editwarrior Mdf to be mean.

Decline reason:

FPS is right. You started edit warring just minutes after your first block expired - that's grounds for a re-blocking, and a stronger one at that. And for the record, accusing the blocking admin of Cabalism with your opponents is pretty bad form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premeditated Chaos (talk • contribs)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: Just for the record, I'm not a friend of Mdf - in fact, I never saw either your name nor his until half an hour ago, and I have never edited Israel/Palestine related articles. In fact, also, I don't particularly like that picture in that article either. Block length includes escalation for repeat offenders. 3rd offense within a week, just minutes after the last block had expired. Escalation to 3 days seems appropriate, but reviewing admins please feel free to shorten as you see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you create any further sockpuppets like Wheelygood (talk · contribs), your block lengths are going to spiral, I can tell you that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are a liar. I do not, have not, and will never use sockpuppets. Wheelygood is someone else entirely, and I request you apologize immediately. RunedChozo 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wheelygood isn't me, he's a friend of mine named Mark, and yes we'd have similar IPs because we're both in the math department. RunedChozo 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

Please consider having an email in preferences and confirming it so you'll also have a user page etc. Good luck in wikipedia, hope you stick along. Cheers. Amoruso 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And you can e-mail me if you need any help. You might want to blank your userpage; just edit it and save it having done nothing, and it will look like mine. Arrow740 05:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments against Striver

With regards to your comments on Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Rosicrucian 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI filed

Striver has noted something upon the administrators' noticeboard/incidents: WP:ANI#sight, referring to a specific edit diff of yours. As a currently impartial observer, I thougt that it might beneficial for you to notice this. You may already know if you regularly check his edits: a practice, it should be noted, that can be abused. Thank you for your attention, and remember to stay cool. Gracenotes ^T § 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for your concern

But Striver and his friends' behavior has been completely beyond the pale. I cannot just sit idly by and pretend that they are something they are not, e.g. honest and well-meaning contributors. RunedChozo 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However, your own behavior does not help your point. If this is important to you it is likewise important to work within Wikipedia guidelines, and that includes WP:DR. You're no good to anyone if you get blocked.--Rosicrucian 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[17] made on December 7 2006 to Muhammad_as_a_diplomat

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 72 hours. William M. Connolley 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Didn't violate it, I have only three today and one addition of the source reference.

Decline reason:

I count 5 in two days and 4 in 24 hours, block is valid -- HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another tip, reverts aren't "credits" to be spent, an impression I read into your text above. If you even get near 3, stop and ask yourself what's happening. If I revert something a second time, that means it's time to take it to the discussion area. Above all, don't WP:PANIC. Really, nothing on this project is SOOOOO important that you need to rv war over it. Avoid revert wars, discuss things, and you'll probably live longer because of better blood pressure and whatnot. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, returning to edit warring on the same article as soon as the block is up is not a point in your favor, nor are the inflammatory edit summaries. As I have mentioned above you're no good to anyone blocked, and the point of a block is as a deterrent to the action that caused it. You really need to be more civil and calm in your dealings or this is just going to repeat itself until they make the block indefinite. I understand you're passionate about your viewpoint, but passion isn't always what serves Wikipedia best.--Rosicrucian 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Just what law are you claiming requires the deletion of true historical facts about Brandt from his article? *Dan T.* 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for personal attacks and incivility at WP:ANI for a period of one thousand minutes. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Gee, blocked by a Muslim Guild member for reporting blatantly false edit summaries by another Muslim Guild member... hmmm... and now the blocker is lying about his reasoning on the WP:ANI page too.

Decline reason:

I would have blocked you if I had got to it first. That kind of incivility disrupts an already difficult page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Oh, I see. So an editor can make blatant lies claiming that an edit is unsourced and OR when it is clearly neither and a source is clearly given, but pointing out that this editor is blatantly lying in his edit summaries is "incivility" to be punished by one of his fellow guild members. Lying is sanctioned by policy, but only if you're Muslim. I get it now.

Decline reason:

Denied. You're not making any sort of a case for an unblock, but are further buttressing the decision to block you in the first place. Mr. Darcy talk 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Oh, I see. So an editor can make blatant lies claiming that an edit is unsourced and OR when it is clearly neither and a source is clearly given, but pointing out that this editor is blatantly lying in his edit summaries is "incivility" to be punished by one of his fellow guild members. Lying is sanctioned by policy, but only if you're Muslim. I get it now.

Decline reason:

Denied. You're not making any sort of a case for an unblock, but are further buttressing the decision to block you in the first place. Mr. Darcy talk 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

What a disingenuous thing to say. I was blocked by an editor friends with an editor I reported for blatant lying, and they claim it's "incivil" to point out that he is not just blatantly lying but lying about another editor. The fact that you are willing to whitewash this behavior is showing where wikipedia's admins heads are. And I note that Tariqabjotu, the Muslim Guild editor who blocked me in bad faith in the first place, is now lying about me some more on the WP:ANI page where I reported his friend now that he's blocked me so that I can't respond to his lies. I'm not really surprised by this, it just gives me a good laugh.

Decline reason:

Unblock request denied twice already. -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please stop abusing the {{unblock}} template or else your talk page can be protected. Your unblock request has been rejected multiple times, and people at WP:ANI are even stating that my block was a bit mild (and it is). And I'm not a member of the Muslim Guild, by the way. -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah and friends blatantly lying

See here please:

I have caught Itaqallah blatantly lying in his edit summaries. I see no reason to assume he or his "Muslim Guild" friends are acting in good faith any more. RunedChozo 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah has now had an admin tool lock the page in bad faith on his behalf. This is beyond insulting behavior and so far beyond good faith it is not even funny, and FayssalF's involvement would appear to be just another Muslim Guild member. RunedChozo 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has to make the decision not to escalate hostilities. You're the only person you can control in this situation, and WP:ANI isn't for content disputes. Take a step back and breathe, because Wikipedia isn't worth getting this worked up over. All you're accomplishing is cruising for block after block and driving away moderate editors such as myself who otherwise would be inclined to agree with you.--Rosicrucian 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does lie in his edit summaries, occasionally. I think I accused him of vandalism on those grounds before, you can check the archives of his talk pages. His edits are rather disruptive at times, too. You can look at his edit on Dec 1 at Criticism of the Quran. However he can usually be reasoned with. Don't worry about the Muhammad as a Diplomat page, I'm just taking a little break from it. Arrow740 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To Rosicrucian

Don't lie about me. I see an edit conflict up above, and I can tell the servers screwed up because I never saw an edit conflict warning, and I NEVER deliberately removed Tariq's statement above, even though he's blatantly violating policy by coming in like he did on it. RunedChozo 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you're willing to assume malice on my part shows that you need to calm down. I saw an edit in which you reverted Tariq's edit and replaced the denial with a fresh request for unblock. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but continuing this behavior is not going to get you unblocked.--Rosicrucian 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have extended your block to 48 hours. Do your self a favor and take a break. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Block based on a lie, I did NOT deliberately remove warnings or anything else as stated above.

Decline reason:

Whether you removed the previous decline deliberately or by mistake, the block extension was amply justified anyway; you're compounding things yet again by calling the admin's interpretation a "lie" (which it wasn't, even if it should have been mistaken); and in any case you've made far too many unblock requests now. Going to protect this page now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block Restart

You have been blocked for further incivility on WP:ANI, block evasion, and having multiple blocks for a period of five days. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The mediation has started, please join at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident --Striver - talk 10:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RunedChozo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

- ZakuSage 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from moving non-article entries into the article namespace, especially to disrupt process. I have reverted your move. QmunkE 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you believe you are being harassed, take it through the proper channels (WP:RfC, WP:MC etc), take the higher ground and stop giving ZakuSage material to throw at you. Moving a dispute page into the main namespace is vandalism - and I'm sure that you will be blocked if you do it again. QmunkE 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RunedChozo, you will be blocked.

The sockpuppet report is in the proper place, and is nowhere near your userspace. Please stop vandalising the sockpuppet report. Your actions are highly childish. - ZakuSage 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Criticism of the Qur'an

Please do not remove huge chunks of sourced material. Sources like Patricia Crone, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Encyclopedia of Islam are all reliable sources. Thanks --Aminz 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks

Blocked
You have been blocked for misbehaviour for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Asterion^talk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm blocked for an amazingly long length of time but ZakuSage isn't blocked for harassing me, this is patently unfair and ridiculous. I protest this unfair block based on bad faith filing at AIV and Asterion's not bothering to take any look besides his helping ZakuSage harass me further. I know what was reported and they lie because I put what had been done back and undid my own edits as soon as I figured out what mistakes I had made and this is just ongoing harassment of me by ZakuSage.

Decline reason:

This is your tenth block, counting reblocks. I'm stunned that you were only blocked for one week. As to ZakuSage, whether or not that user is blocked is irrelevant to the matter of unblocking you. You are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and this includes refraining from edit wars, 3RR violations, personal attacks, and incivility. -- Yamla 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

That a buddybuddy of a liar is "stunned" doesn't surprise me in the slightest. "Tenth block" is a joke as islamist Tariqabjotu and his friends just used that to harass me. I adhered to policies as well as I could, ZakuSage did the same things I did, and you just go after me. You're a bad liar and a worse person.

Decline reason:

Your personal attack resulted in another admin extending your block to two weeks. Personal attacks are not permitted, please see WP:NPA. This page has been protected so you can have some time to cool off. And for the record, I have never talked to the administrator who blocked you nor, to the best of my knowledge, have I ever even edited the same page that he has. -- Yamla 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spam

For the record for other visitors to this page: I received an unsolicited spam e-mail from this user, in which the community of Wikipedians is referred to as "liars and frauds" and various other stereotypical angry-user rantings. — Timwi 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And a second one, calling me a liar. — Timwi 23:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have received numerous similar messages, and have had to block him from my e-mail server. What is fascinating about this attack is I have never before had any contact whatsoever with this user. He craves a fight so badly that he seeks out random people he has never interacted in any way to abuse. ➥the Epopt 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've filtered him out from my e-mail as well, since he obviously won't stop bothering uninvolved people. — Timwi 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

point tagging

RunedChozo, tagging articles and reverting ([18][19]) to retain them requires justification. you currently have provided none. the only argument i can see is "i don't like the article, so i'm tagging it," which isn't helpful at all. therefore, as there is currently no legitimate basis for the tag, please proceed to remove it until some has been provided. ITAQALLAH 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

per this, please try to remain civil. ITAQALLAH 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

please don't post inflammatory remarks on my talk page, RunedChozo. you haven't justified why the tag merits inclusion. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your battle

The Epopt is either on or was on Arbcom, your swimming up stream, no admin is gonig to oppose an Arbcom member, as only Arbcom can remove their admin rights. --NuclearZer0 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record...

"Sony America's President Jack Tretton made statement that he would pay a $1200 bounty for people who found a PS3 available on store shelves" -That's factually inaccurate. He said he'd pay the interviewer $1200 if he could find on on store shelves that had been there for more than 5 minutes. Even if you then provide the quote, it's still outright false to declare that he offered to pay money to just anybody who found one. Also, you can't use normal html tags (ie. for linking) in wikipedia. They don't work.
Watch: <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/02/12"> -Doesn't work, does it? The link gets linked, but the ugly tags are still there.
Also, you linked to the same article twice.
In short, no aspect of the initial entry, whether it be the description, the links, or the formatting of any part thereof, could possibly have had any value whatsoever. And it isn't everyone else's job to take such useless information and fix it for you. If you want to make an addition, do the work yourself.
And even that's setting aside the fact that it's of questionable significance anyways. That wasn't about the reception; it was about Tretton's (incredibly) delusional interpretation of the ps3's reception. Adding it is hardly neutral. Just because sony execs appear to have some issues with understanding, um, reality... that doesn't make it appropriate to unduly highlight their mistakes.
(Just as a disclaimer: Before I'm accused of being a sony fanboy, I happen to think the ps3 is an overhyped, overpriced piece of junk, that's been sabotaged just to spite competitors, and that's presented with an air of unjustified superiority. It's just that you won't see that bias in any of my edits) Bladestorm 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed the content once. SynergyBlades did it the second time. That said, you're still acknowledging that you have a POV to push. You want to illustrate how foolish sony execs are. The quote would be worthwhile to mention in an article about jack tretton (or if there's an article about sony marketing, etc. then likewise for that as well), but it doesn't really illustrate how the ps3 was or wasn't received. The fact that tretton gravely overestimated the interest in his crappy product doesn't do anything to say that the ps3 was well-liked, criticized, or really anything else. All it goes to show is that tretton has entirely lost touch with reality.

Either way, I won't bother removing it myself. The technical errors are gone, and you didn't try saying "sony eats puppies", so I can't say I care either way. But just don't be surprised if someone else removes it. (or at least relocates it to another area) Bladestorm 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a "pov to push." I see that a factual incident has occurred worthy of mention in the Wikipedia article related to the product. RunedChozo 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to Wikipedia

If you like the idea of Wikipedia but disagree with this project's particular implementation of that idea (as you implied on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing), you may be interested in looking at Opencycle, a similar project to create a freely-editable open-content encyclopedia, but without a lot of the arrogant uptightness that is prevalent on Wikipedia.

Blocked

You've been tip-toeing the line today, but these two edits crossed it. -- Steel 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

blocked by one of the same abusive admins who was harassing me earlier oh what a surprise. The rules mean nothing to these types.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=blocked by one of the same abusive admins who was harassing me earlier oh what a surprise. The rules mean nothing to these types.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=blocked by one of the same abusive admins who was harassing me earlier oh what a surprise. The rules mean nothing to these types.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=blocked by one of the same abusive admins who was harassing me earlier oh what a surprise. The rules mean nothing to these types.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}