User talk:66.90.148.162

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept material that is not supported by sources that pass our Reliable Sources policy, as with the previously removed material that you restored in the Ron Marz article. A reliable source must be some person or organization generally accepted as a valid authority on the subject matter, and/or which have some type of credentialing process or editorial oversight over the content. Posts on message boards by people not considered such an authority are not considered reliable sources. Moreover, the link cited for that content, doesn't even lead to a post, but merely a message board directory.

In addition, the same term should not be wikilinked more than once in the same section, yet you reverted that as well.

If you have any other questions about editing, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

That edit summary made me laugh, which I desperately needed. Thanks for that and nice changes. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I'm halfway expecting some sock-puppeted admin to pop up here before the day is out trying to ban me just because of that summary, totally ignoring the fact that the edits were valid. Been a *lot* of that around Wikipedia the past few years, sad to say. User:66.90.148.162 00:09, 13 August 2010

...Apparently someone calling themselves "Nightscream" has decided to play Wikinazi on me. Most likely he's reverted all the tweaks I've done on other pages, so I'll have to go back and see what sort of vandalism he's committed. This is one of the reasons I probably should quit editing errors that I find here, as there's always some troll who's more interested in picking on people and playing power trip games than doing what's right to keep Wikipedia at least halfway credible as a resource.

Please stop blanking this talk page, and stop violating Wikipedia's Civility policy by engaging in name-calling. I have no interest in any of the other work you've done in other articles, though this talk page will retain an accurate record of the messages left on it, as it is not your personal talk page. If you want one, sign in for an account. Someone is not a "Nazi" or "troll" simply because they level legitimate criticism or point out breaches of policy, nor does effecting changes constitute "vandalism", a "power trip", "stalking", or "harassment". If you wish to continue editing here, please respect the site's rules, including ones regarding personally attacking other editors, which I would point out, are as important to maintaining the site's credibility as a resource as any other. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously stalking me, considering how quick you're reverting things. It's Wikinazis - yes, you're a Wikinazi, as demonstrated by your stalkin - that keep me from going ahead and registering an account to do serious edits from. I don't want to put up with the stalking and harassment that you and your ilk foist on *normal* people trying to help make Wikipedia at least halfway credible a resource. When Wikipedia's detractors complain about how "the inmates run the asylum", they're talking about abusers like you.

Either way, you've made your points and you've had your trolling fun. Now leave me alone and go harass someone else, because other than continuing to blank your previous harassment, I've had the last I'll say on this. 00:20, 14 August 2010 66.90.148.162

The speed at which I reverted your edits is derived from the fact that I was editing articles on my Watchlist, and saw your revert after refreshing it. The notion that the only possibility for this is "stalking" is false, and your knee-jerk insistence that it is is due to your own disposition rather than any action on my part, as is your arbitrary use of words like "abuser" or "Nazi". Whether you like it or not, if you visit someone else's website, it is your responsibility to follow their rules, or leave, rather than acting as if anyone who points out these rules to you when you violate them is someone committing some type of transgression against you.

This is your final warning. The next time you violate WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks or WP:Assume Good Faith by engaging in name-calling or false accusations, or any other type of disruptive editing, such as treating this IP talk page as if it's your own by blanking past messages on it, you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You realize that by threatening to ban me, you've proven my claims that you *are* stalking me *AND* abusing any admin rights you possess? And one other thing, Phil - a *true* Christian wouldn't stalk and harass. Or would they?

Oh, and Phil? While you're thinking up a cutesy answer for that last question, answer this - without resorting to hiding behind some link to a bogus rule - *WHY* are comments on talk pages not supposed to be deleted? Are we expected to let harassment from stalkers remain for all to see? 02:03, 15 August 2010 66.90.148.162

No, I have not proven your notion of "stalking", because issuing block warnings to editors who persistently violate Wikipedia guidelines (which is not a "threat", nor the same thing as a "ban") is precisely one of the duties performed by administrators. To argue that doing what admins are supposed to do is "abuse" makes little sense, and that doing this proves "stalking" is a non sequitur. Your insistence on relying on such stock accusatory words seems to demonstrate only that you use them with little regard for what they mean, and employ them to mean "anything that I don't like."

You state that the rules I mentioned are "bogus". How are they bogus? Does your browser not bring you to those policy pages? Do those pages not clearly indicate those policies? In what way are they anything other than what I indicated they are?

Comments on talk pages can certainly be removed, by the user. As I stated more than once, you are not the sole user of this talk page, as you're editing from an IP, and maintaining a record of past warnings about policy violations is a valid practice. If you want a talk page unique to yourself, just sign in for an account. It's free, it takes seconds, and you can use a username if you prefer. But you have not demonstrated "harassment" on my part, or anyone else's. If you can explain how a polite message from an admin to an editor that an edit of theirs does not conform to a particular policy or guideline constitutes "harassment", then by all means, do so.

I have no idea why you're addressing me as "Phil", since that's not my name, and I'm not a Christian. You obviously have mistaken me for someone else. Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lessee, on your own user page, you tell everyone "You can converse with me and my friends on any number of topics at Nitcentral." "Nitcentral" is run by Phil Farrand. Your statement implies that you are the owner of Nitcentral. If this isn't true, then *you* are the one acting under false pretenses.

In any case, I'm done with this. Once again, an admin abusing his powers has managed to sour the taste of Wikipedia. I've no real desire to set up an account and play the ego-tripping "Duh, I've done 251,302 edits so I know more than you" game, so it's mox nix whether it's free, takes seconds, or any other "benefits". It's obvious that this place really *is* run by the inmates, and you don't want anyone else trying to help out and steal your thunder. I should have known better than to even limit my edits to just punctuation and grammar errors, because even those efforts aren't appreciated.

Hope you're satisfied. 3:30, 15 August 2010 66.90.148.162

The statement you reference does not imply that I "own" Nitcentral. This is just another of your non sequiturs, in which you ascribe one and only one possible meaning or solution for some question or action. Another possibility is that Nitcentral is simply a website that I visit often, which happens to the case. Nitcentral is indeed owned by Phil Farrand, and not by myself. The fact that I inform visitors to my user page that I can also be found on another site is only a "false pretense" in your imagination.

No one has indicated that your edits are not appreciated. The problem is that you seem to think that conclusions are dogmatic rather than determined by evidence or reason, and one of your little dogmas seems to be that anyone who politely admonishes you by pointing out the site's guidelines or policies is has committed some type of crime against you. Nothing I've said or done to you has anything to do with "ego-tripping", nor have I ever mentioned my edit count or experience to you. You simply have decided that you don't want to follow the rules on a privately-owned website, that anyone who explains to you that this is unacceptable is the aggressor, and deserving of your arbitrary false accusations and name-calling, and that these notions are not up for discussion or debate. That's a reflection of your poor attitude, and nothing on my part or Wikipedia's. But if a site's refusal to tolerate your incivility or rule-breaking is too much for you to tolerate, that's your choice. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind answering *three* questions honestly?

1) How old are you? And yes, it *does* matter.

2) If you're not on a power trip, *why* are you making such a big deal about all this?

3) Considering what set this all off, are you a friend of Ron Marz?

Again, let's see honest answers here on these.

Given that you've deliberately ignored points and questions that I have put to you, and that these questions of yours are predicated on continuing to ignore these points of mine, let me ask you: Will you answer my questions, if I agree to answer yours? I ask, because you've already dodged my own previously.

Just so you know, if you agree to answer mine, honestly, without euphemism, false definitions of words, self-serving rhetoric, etc., I will answer every single one of your questions, in complete honesty, and detail. Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, I honestly don't feel like digging through *your* egotistical, pseudoauthoritarian rhetoric to find those "questions" of yours. Out of -courtesy- to you, I bulletpointed my questions to make it simpler for you to answer them. Or, as it turns out, easier for you to avoid them.

Sorry, but I honestly need mine answered first, as they'll determine whether further discussion/debate is actually worth the time and minor effort. If you're willing to restate your own "questions" in a bulletpoint fashion, I'll honestly consider answering them.

Finding questions

Terribly curious as to what questions Nightscream had asked, and to find how difficult it would be to dig to find them, I told my browser to search (cntrl-f) for "?" and found instances of that character in Nightscream's posts. They appear in a single paragraph that goes as follows:

"You state that the rules I mentioned are "bogus". How are they bogus? Does your browser not bring you to those policy pages? Do those pages not clearly indicate those policies? In what way are they anything other than what I indicated they are?"

I too am interested in the answers to those questions.Mkanoap (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If he wants to answer my questions first, and then restate his in bulletpoint mode, I'll actually be glad to answer them as a favor to you. Had Nightwhatever been a bit more polite and far less condescending - a fatal habit of many admins around here, I've learned over the years - this whole mess wouldn't have gone as far as it has. Your attitude, however, is appreciated, sir.

Ball's in his court now. Let's see how he plays it.

If you want participate in an exchange of ideas or discussion with other people, then you're going to have to hold yourself to whatever standard that you would demand from them. Your behavior to date does not exhibit this, as you have not exhibited the merest hint of good faith, politeness, or honesty, as any objective, uninvolved editor would see by looking through it. The fact that you indicate that answering my questions would require "digging", and that I have to jump through your flaming hoops in terms of formatting my questions in order to have an exchange with you (even though Mkanoap quoted them for you), while simultaneously claiming that I'm the one who's "egotistical", "[im]polite" or "condescending", underlines this fairly emblematically, I think.

The truth of the matter is that you dodged my questions because you know that you have been transparent in your dismissal of this site's policies, and that you could not refute any point I've made, much less substantiate your contention that those policies are "bogus". It is clear that you have no intention of ever answering my questions, regardless of whether I answer yours, as your only concern seems to be to impose your own personal viewpoint on this site, and to capriciously regard anyone standing in your way of this as being guilty of some transgression against you, while falsely painting yourself as some kind of victim. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he played it *exactly* as I called it. Thanks for proving me right, kid.