User talk:87.69.176.81: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:48, 2 May 2009

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (87.69.176.81) 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! Stifle (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to YouTube

Please note that YouTube should not be linked as a reference. See WP:YT, WP:ELNEVER, and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. I'm an experienced user and stay anonymous for a reason. YouTube can be used as a source sometimes, this is a part of Pablo's well-known "preview man" routine and I couldn't think of a better way to source the bit than... you know, presenting the video. In any case, I'm restoring my edit with the Amazon.com reference of the DVD of the show. I'll appreciate some good faith and common sense, thank you. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to restore the link to YouTube, please don't. If you're as experienced as you say, you'll know that we don't link to copyright violations. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop vandalizing You Got F'd in the A or I will report you to an Admin. --Captain Infinity (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism. I demand an apology, since this fake warning looks quite bad on my talk page and I do not appreciate false accusations. "F'd in the A" is a common contraction and all I did was hyperlink to the proper WP entries. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The words you are adding are not mentioned in the show at all, and the official web site does not use them in relation to this term. See the reference on the page about the official show title. They may mean something to YOU, but you are putting your own interpretation on it that the creators of the show have not. This alone is revertable, as it is Original Research. Additions and interpretations like these have been consistently reverted since the creation of the original article, and will continue. The fact that they are vulgarities, and that you are editing from an unregistered identity, make them vandalism. Knock it off, please. --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unregistered identity" has nothing to do with this dispute. This is a common contraction, like "F-ing" ot "bad mother" – therefore, does not need sourcing as it is a part of modern American English slang. This is not my own interpretation by a long shot and considering all that has been said, you are the one who should "knock it off." Thank you. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to City on the Edge of Forever, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Alastairward (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Edit War

Your recent editing history at City on the Edge of Forever shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Also, if you actually registered, you might be taken more seriously. Alastairward (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's your mistake. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, be they registered or not. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, that's correct. In practice, some people think of all anons as vandals. That's not the way it's supposed to be done, but I wouldn't call it a mistake to assume that registered accounts are taken more seriously in general. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and some people think of all Mexicans as lazy, what's your point? I stay anonymous for a reason, which I keep to myself at this point. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that while it would be nice if Alastairward was mistaken as you claim, he likely isn't...at least in some people's minds. I couldn't care less about whether or not you register an account or the reasons you have for thinking an IP is more anonymous than a username. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Your recent editing history at Katie Couric shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this so-called warning that you’re trying impose on me, that is nothing but hogwash. I am laughing hysterically over this obnoxious stunt of yours. You think I’m too stupid to figure out the nonsense that you’re pulling on here? You have no authority whatsoever here on Wikipedia. True wikipedia administrators do not use IP addresses when imposing warnings on violators LIKE YOURSELF. They have actual screen names like Alastairward (talk) with respectable user bio and talk pages. YOU DON’T HAVE JACK.

To your so-called claims of being an “experienced user” and “preferring to stay anonymous on here,” I question both claims BIG TIME. If you were an experienced user, you would no better to NOT be anonymous, and make a screen name. Otherwise, none of us would ever figure out that you’re committing all these ridiculous acts from Rishon Le Zion, Tel Aviv, Israel. If we can figure that out, you bet we can figure out more.

As far as your edits on Katie Couric’s article, this particular trivial fact from South Park has been discussed in the past. First of all this is trivial information, who is prohitied on wikipedia under the Fancruft rule. On top of that, this trivial information has no relevance whatsoever to the television news journalist, and therefore does not belong on her article or Bono’s article whether you like it or not.

For all I can tell, you are nothing but a punk, a social reject who likes to stir up havoc and controversy here on wikipedia. So much for all of this narcistic “experienced integrity user” hoopla that you try to pull off. You don’t fool anybody. So why don’t you do me, Captain Infinity (talk) and others you like to pick a bone on a favor...and go f’ yourself. We are not going to tolerate your B.S. on here KeltieMartinFan (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! ESpublic013 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Grammar is not a wikiquette issue. Please consider adding the new diffs to the AN/I thread and letting the WQA thread close. There's no reason for discussion in multiple forums. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for continuing discussion in multiple forums. Please just expand the AN/I thread and let the WQA thread close. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are two issues, not one. If I merely expand the other forum, it'll look too long and mixing several issues together. I am not interested in getting to the point of WP:TLDNR. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your striking of Tonywalton's comments on AN/I. Please do not alter comments left by others. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved, so I've struck out the comment as irrelevant. I will make sure it is extremely visible that I was the one who performed the striking. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to note that the discussion has been moved and you think the comment is now irrelevant, feel free...but do not alter comments left by others. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond irrelevant, this is a false accusation. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have blocked you for 3 hours because you were editing people's comments after being ask not to. When the block expires you are welcome to participate in discussions but do not edit other people's comments, even if you disagree with the content. Chillum 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny... I'm being blocked yet whoever calls me names and tells me to "go f' myself" is not. There's Wikipedia for ya. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd) It's not a false accusation. It was a completely true statement at the time he wrote it. If you'd like to make a note that explains his comment, feel free. If you like to ask Tonywalton whether or not he'd consider striking it himself, again feel free. Do not strike it out again yourself. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee 87, when asking nicely does not stop you from editing other's comments you leave us very little choice. If you just stopped editing other people's comments this would not have happened. What else are we supposed to do to prevent you from editing other's comments? Should we have protected the whole page instead of blocking you, or should we have let you alter other people's comments? I am afraid neither alternative was an option. Chillum 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is engaging in personal attacks or incivility against you just post some diffs here and I will look into it. Chillum 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all listed here. As for your query, I was not really altering the comment, but merely striking it while explicitly stating that I was the one who did it. When asking nicely does not stop you from actively preventing me from making the proper adjustments to the discussion, what can I do? Oh... nothing, since you are an admin and I am "just" an IP.

To Onorem (talk · contribs) – this was never "completely true" since the issues are different, but unfortunately, that's been already discussed to death. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altering other people's comments is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyoneone please cease from ignoring what I have to say and actually read it? This was not an alteration of the comment! 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] constitutes altering someone else's comments. I wonder if you realize you are heading towards "Plaxico" territory with all this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not even remotely close to what Keltie did by repeatedly reinserting insults or removing others' comments on someone else's talk page. I did not really alter the comment, I've struck it and explained loud and clear that I did it, not them. What's wrong here? In any case, I have promised Chillum (talk · contribs) to stop it, so I am. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were attempting to discuss different situations on the 2 different boards, but the issue was the same, incivility by KeltieMartinFan. Even if you disagree with that assessment, the correct action for you would be to note why you disagree with his comment, not to strike his comment. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial issue was Keltie's incivility towards me. The second issue was their incivility towards others and having many non-constructive edits that reduce WP's overall article quality (at least grammar wise) while unjustly accusing me of the same. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that user has already been warned about the inappropriateness of his/her comments towards you. If that warning is disregarded... well you know what happens then. Chillum 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is far deeper than that, please read the whole thread, especially the sub-paragraph. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read all of that. Though judging by its length and that it is on the admin noticeboard I am sure plenty of other of admins have reviewed it. Chillum 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least please take a look at the diffs provided in the sub-paragraph, as far as that user's edit patterns go. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said there are plenty of people reviewing that. I see some references to incivility and a warning to that user not to do it again, as far as I can tell it stopped there. If there are ongoing issues be sure that people are monitoring them. We don't act punitively here, only preventively. If someone stops bad behavior after a warning then we don't do anything further. In fact if you simply give me your word not to edit other people's comments or edit in a disruptive way I will unblock you right now(of course if you fail to keep such a promise the re-block will be for a longer duration). Chillum 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP, you have my word. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. You have been unblocked. Please do not make a fool out of me for doing so. Chillum 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. However, I do know this, and since I only added a couple of sentences to an existing comment, I do not need to sign it again. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of inserting comments into an existing paragraph, you inserted a separate paragraph [2] and that's probably what triggered the bot to post the above comment, because it cannot tell that your new comment is part of the previous comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User talk:Durova has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Galorr ^{Critique Me} 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User talk:Durova. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Galorr ^{Critique Me} 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I not have the right to inquire why I am being accused of what does not exist? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that "pigs fly" / "swine flu" joke as being racist, but evidently others did, so it has to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You told me just minutes ago not to touch others' comments. Prove the racism and I'll agree to delete it. So far, a couple of users who don't get jokes do not constitute a consensus for violating this rule. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Syrthiss (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ENOUGH ALREADY!!! I HAVE NOT VANDALIZED ANYTHING AND WILL APPRECIATE IT IF NONEXISTENT "MISDEMEANORS" WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO ME ANY LONGER. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not permitted to revert removals of your comments from someone else's usertalk page. Re-adding them can be considered disruptive, ok? Let it drop ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Galorr gave no reason for his removal of comments from someone else's talk page. There was nothing wrong with the question. If Durova had removed them, that would be a different case. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, thanks a lot for clarifying this. I would not have reverted if the owner of the talk page would have done that. On the other hand, I am allowed to inquire to that user without others trying to shut me up. If anything, a warning should be issued to Staffwaterboy (talk · contribs) for tampering with my comments on someone else's talk page and later on mine!!! I did not vandalize anything and I firmly stand by it. I will keep defending my right to free speech here and no amount of unjust retaliation is going to change that. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for input on why he removed your comments, but haven't seen a response. As a side note, there is no free speech here. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That as may be, but I doubt Wikipedia supports this specific case. If I want to present a legitimate question to an editor (who slandered me on their edit summary by calling me a "racist"), no other editor (who slandered me on my talk page twice by calling me a "vandal") is entitled to remove my comment if sees fit. Same goes for my attempt to defend myself that got reverted by the same user. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

If I may make a suggestion, I would say you are not helping yourself at ANI. First, changing your prior comments like this is heavily frowned upon as it makes the later comments of others inaccurate. I'm going to be nice and not revert that right now but don't it again. Period. Second, your attitude here isn't going to win favors. Nobody can force KeltieMartinFan to give you an apology (and that's really not a productive use of time), and it should be clear by now that people ARE going to be watching him from now on. In fact, if he does speak in that tone again to you, you can contact me on my talk page (or even via email) and I'll put a serious threat on him. Plenty of people here are prickly jerks and while we have civility rules, that alone is rarely enough to completely stop someone. As to Baseball Bugs and Georgewilliamherbert, it's normal for us to question the motives of the person reporting to ANI (years of being here is enough experience) and it's quite reasonable for them to question you. I would suggest your strike out your last comment (not delete, so that it shows that you did say it and that you removed it) and let it go. Now, you can either listen to this and realize that people are at least paying attention to your complaint about an insult your received on an online encyclopedia of volunteers or continue until you find yourself ignored and blocked, as the rest of us move on because there's a lot more interesting things to do than drama. It's totally up to you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to comment. However, please try and look at it from my angle:

Your implication is that "I should be grateful that anyone even gives a rat's ass about the fact that someone attacked me, and must get down on my knees and praise the Lord I haven't been blocked yet... for having the nerve to complain."
Changing from "ten" to "eleven" occurred after I remembered another "count," which I have listed at ANI. As I wrote there, I remembered it and came to properly alter the number. This has, in no way, influence over the next replies.
An apology would at least show an attempt to wp:assume good faith, and good faith is all I'm looking for here. As for the SPI accusation – these users interrogated me, aggressively pushing their agenda in front of mine and from everything apparent, tried to reverse the situation because they agree with KeltieMartinFan's views on the Katie Couric article. What are they trying to do, round up a posse?

In any case, I will later consider striking that comment and generally letting this thing go, but it's hard considering all this pile of dog shit that's been created ever since I tried to insert that single miserable sentence into an article. Gotta go now – again, thank you for all your help during this farce. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, accept that, fine, it's an online encyclopedia of volunteers and people will only go so far in arguing with a complete stranger. I mean, seriously, do you think I want the drama of arguing about this? The blocking threat is pretty unlikely, just stop attacking everybody. That's just not reasonable conduct here. Fine, you have a legitimate beef against one person, but others questioning you is going to happen, and if plan on staying here, it's going to happen no matter what. The conduct is suspicious and people are trying to see if it's somebody who is aggravating him over months. That's doesn't condone his conduct but it's a separate issue. You should be able to see the point Georgewilliamherbert is making here and why it's pretty reasonable. As to the apology, that's on him. Nobody is going to force it (probably no one will really even mention it), he's probably not going to do it (unless he's somehow more mature than 99% of the users here), that's just it. I could scream at him to fix all his prior warnings, but I doubt he'll do it and I'll get grief for possibly being too mean, so I move on. If the ANI notice gets archived (a bot archives it if nobody's commented for 48 hours there) and he doesn't do it, I'll do it myself. That's just life. Also, think about your comments to the clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mexicomida. User:Nathan wasn't supporting the request at the start and is still considering it. Now, think about this. Does your long response (starting with "This witch hunt won't stop") help or hurt George's suspicions? ~~What he's going to do is generally check the IP addresses used by the prior users and see if you seem like the same person. It's a serious privacy concern so it isn't taken lightly.~~ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that last part. I'm speaking from ignorance mostly. That's just my general understanding but you can ask Nathan or one of the actual checkusers listed there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

87.69.176.81, CadenS has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It's appalling to see the hell so many are puting you through on ANI. They put you on some kind of trial with no concrete evidence to back up their bogus beliefs. Believe me I've been there so I know how it feels. It's sad to see man but it's a reality on here. As frustrating as it may seem, you need to know that we have double standards around this place. But don't give up. You're doing the right thing by speaking up but be careful on how far you go. Also, pay no attention to Bugs (he's trouble trust me) or George (he's too biased in your case). You've been judged by them and there is nothing that you can do to change that. At least Ricky and I can see the true issue here and that's the personal attacks/incivilty made by Keltie towards you as well as other IPs. Ricky's well aware of Keltie and is keeping an eye on him. Anyway, I wish you luck. Take care. Caden ^{is cool} 11:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ...those of us who tried to refocus the issue get no mention? Bah! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the support. :-) 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember BWilkins well. He's a guy who participated in the witch hunt on that ANI from hell where he more or less accused me of being a racist member of the KKK with no proof whatsoever. I'll never forget that. Caden ^{is cool} 11:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon slander is the way to go here... pin any blame, as long as you have "reasonable suspicion"... and most important, never apologize! Is this the way to become a fit RfA candidate? Makes one wonder... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Notes

The incivility experience is not significant enough for a block of the user, likely only a warning. By filing the request at ANI, you firmly bring your own past actions to the forefront. This in and of itself is not usually a bad thing. However, an editor actions at ANI are also used to determine the outcome.

It has now been 17 hrs since I recommended a warning. The support isn't there, and ANI actions require consensus. Let me explain why I think that is:

the additions you were trying to make to the Couric article were actually disruptive
your behaviour in ANI was shocking
your forum-shopping, and edit-warring on WQA
your behaviour on Durova's and other pages was beyond reproach
your regular attacks on those who actually tried to help
your insistence that you have a right to free speech, apologies, etc is incorrect

What I'm trying to say is that you torpedoed your own case, which is what I warned you about at the very beginning. An SSI case is now pending against you - indeed, many people in ANI appear to have believed that you WERE the same person who had been altering the Couric article for some time, meaning that "rudeness" towards that became more "tolerable" as it was against a long pattern of "vandalism" (all quotes intentional). The result of SSI is usually a block of IP's AND all accounts. If any of those users were actually you, you're better off admitting it, and saving at least one of your accounts - declare a "master" at let them block the rest. I will monitor this page for responses. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dude, you can forget about forcing me into admitting a lie! What kind of wikipolicy is that? As I stated, I am willing to undergo any sort of examination to prove that I have never engaged in sockpuppetry. Check users and do what you will, I know that I am innocent here. As for your allegations:

While you and others saw it as disruptive for various reasons, I made these edits in complete good faith;
When I am being constantly attacked and scapegoated by Keltie's buddies who are trying their red herrings as hard as they can, I defend myself. Just as I am doing now.
I complained to several forums because I was not certain what the correct procedure was, I was also under the impression that these were two separate issues. Now that I have learned that Wikipedia sees it as one single issue, this is all behind us. Honest mistake.
I left a legitimate inquiry on Durova's talk page and got reverted by a third party. TWICE. Who was violating what again?
Again, defense is the reaction to offense, not vice versa. I was repeatedly attacked so I might have misinterpreted your actions/suggestions. I have already apologized – why are you still wallowing in this?
Ditto as the previous paragraph. If I am trying to leave an inquiry on someone's talk page only to be rudely "shushed" by an unrelated user, my right to free speech is being violated. I know, WP:Free Speech blah blah blah... but I am still entitled to ask a question and at least have the user, whom I asked, see it.

As far as I know, I came to the Couric article after remembering the SP episode, wanted to include the reference as valid and in complete good faith, and Keltie assumed bad faith/sockpuppeting/serial vandalism and viciously attacked me without even having the decency to try and converse first. This is not justifiable by any means. Period. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 :Thanks for all the support. :-) [[Special:Contributions/87.69.176.81|87.69.176.81]] ([[User talk:87.69.176.81#top|talk]]) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 ::Ah yes, I remember BWilkins well. He's a guy who participated in the witch hunt on that ANI from hell where he more or less accused me of being a racist member of the KKK with no proof whatsoever. I'll never forget that. [[User:CadenS|<b><font color="blue">'''Caden'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:CadenS|<font><sup><small>'''is cool'''</small></sup></font>]] 11:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
+:::I reckon slander is the way to go here... pin any blame, as long as you have "reasonable suspicion"... and most important, never apologize! Is this the way to become a fit RfA candidate? Makes one wonder... [[Special:Contributions/87.69.176.81|87.69.176.81]] ([[User talk:87.69.176.81#top|talk]]) 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 == A Few Notes ==