User talk:CrystalizedAngels

This user is a confirmed sock puppet of Benjiwolf, established by CheckUser, and has been indefinitely blocked. See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

Hi benji

You have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of disruptive editor Benjiwolf as established by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CrystalizedAngels. auburnpilot talk 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Klamath

 	+ 	
 	+ 	Sorry about the overlapping edits - I didn't realize you were still at it. -Pete 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting removal of auburn pilots admin status

Auburn pilot was invloved in an editing dispute, he has used his priviledges as an admin to block an editor he disagreed with, he has also now used his priviledges to protect vandalism by a friendly editor that edits the FOX news page alongside himself, if they wish to get in bed together to edit then fine, but to go around wikipedia harrassing and vandalizing is not according to wikipedia policy and ethic...he would not allow factual referenced material stating the owners of FOX news, their citizenships & past citizenships, and the inheritance issues around the controlling and profit shares. I have not edited that article page since this incident from any account, partly in protest and in disgust, partly as I'm not interested in dealing with the editors involved in that dispute on wikipedia in any way, I dont really care to work with them, its they that have pursued me across wikipedia. I sincerely believe his administration priviledges should be revoked. No vandalism has occured with account crystalizedangels, the account has contributed valueably to wikipedia...auburnpilot should be removed of ability to interfere at all in benjiwolf case, and also after abuse of this kind from an admin he should lose the priviledge, in fact it makes me think very poorly of wikipedia. no admin should be able to interfere with an editor he was invloved in an article dispute with. wikipedia has become elitist and cliquey! an editor that manages elite admin status can walk around wikipedia doing whatever they wish, and the fact is a lot of the admins just arent good quality, some are great, but there are many I'll betcha that just arent so great, and many arent at all somehow better editors than the "commoner editors" of wikipedia, just some few are. anyways if admins can abuse like this then I'm heading over to several Universities and the public libraries and getting all computers blocked by signing in to this account. Then I'm heading to another private unblocked computer to return to editing anonymously. If you want to war with me auburnpilot i can appease you, believe me, and I can create a bunch of headaches, and waste a bunch of peoples time dealing with it on wikipedia-CrystalizedAngels 11:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

you will also find that the other editor involved in the FOX news dispute (blaxthos) wrote to auburn pilot after he was responded to from his frequent activity invloving benjiwolf account, and then auburn pilot blocked this account after blaxthos requested something. this is unfair ganging behavior by two frequent FOX news page editors, who I charge as being highly politically motivated editors, forming a cabal to block an editor with somewhat different political opinion, (at least concerning the FOX news page, I'm a fan of ann coulter for instance), as I say i totally avoid these editors when at all possible, yet they continue to pursue this subject "benjiwolf" they are after, to no avail of course, they can see quite clearly that I have access to hundreds of IPs if necessary........ anyways have fun blocking the University and library computers auburnpilot, as i then head to yet another private IP after visiting them... as I stroll and meander thru the narrow alleys and cobblestone streets of switzerlandCrystalizedAngels 11:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

actually what has gone on here was protected vandalism

now on thinking of it, user blaxthos committed an act of vandalism, then wrote over to user auburnpilot to get his act protected and also to put a block on the account he vandalized. I was editing on two pages dear to me, from my native lands in trinity county california, and the surrounding mountains, i had particularly been working on the klamath mountains, yet i had a very slow computer, a couple other users had made an edit or two while i was in transition creating the edits leading to an edit conflict of the nature that i had to erase all i had added or remove a sources tag, the simplest thing was to just paste up my edit, then restor the other users tag. I wrote a little not int he edit summary to allow me a little time to work on the article to fix it up, as my particular computer was very slow, and also i had to make repeated small edits and save quickly as the computer would sometimes disconnect from the server or something, anyways the other editor gave me a word of praise for adding to the article, and apologized for any confusion, to where i then apologized back in kind saying it was no problem and tried to explain my low quality computer situation that evening. So what happens is blaxthos comes along and blanks this talk page, in a clear act of disruptive vandalism, from what i understand of policy that was undisputedly an act of vandalism to erase comments on a talk page. So after being provoked like that, and after all the other actions from user blaxthos, i responded to this disruptive editor finally, and told him that it was an act of vandalism to blank a talk page. He then wrote to user auburnpilot and thereby achieved this account block. I was contributing valueably to wikipedia, on a totally non-political page, and this FOX news editor comes along to blatantly harrass, then gets defended by an admin, both of them involved in the original reason for the block of user account benjiwolf, in an edit dispute over allowance of factual information, highly referenced, to go in some form on the FOX news page. Its specifically the reason for alternate accounts so that one isnt followed by disruptive editors like blaxthos or auburnpilot, even on non-political subjects like a county or a mountain range. In a perfect world one wouldnt need alternate accounts, yet this last act of vandalism to this talk page by user blaxthos is a good example of why they come in handy. and I am once again restoring that comment from the other editor to this talk page, it was avalid comment, no vandalism was occuring between either this account or that one, if was a discussion of the editing on a mountain range page totally non-politcal in nature, the edits to that page were not vandalism and were an effort to expand a stubbed article, and you get this FOX news punk coming by...so get ready to get blasted back auburnpilot and blaxthos in a variety of ways, get ready for public computers blocked, and me continuing editing from private IPs, if disruptive behavior like blanking a talk page is condoned and even defended by an admin, then its the wild west on wikipedia and anything goes in a countering effort at disruption of wikipediaCrystalizedAngels 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

wikidictionary needs improvement thru expansion... people!

and so I'll use the opportunity to criticize wikidictionary, it is a very poor dictionary, I highly advise people to avoid using it and to use a proper book dictionary at this time, wikidictionary needs drastic expansion of definitions and sentence examples and etymology etc etc, until then I think it is somewhat damaging as a reference source, perhaps its the best on the internet, I dont know, but anyways it is of very poor quality currently, and its something also that can be made good quality quite easily, there is no political controversy really over wikidictionary entries, so the many political blocks of editors on wikipedia that waste countless eons of time on wikipedia over minor haggling would be well served to actually get something accomplished and beef up wikidictionary to where it could be considered a useful tool and valued source, to where i could eventually say it is an excellent dictionary, comparable to many of the best large book dictionaries. So my suggestion to you auburn pilot, is to stop wasting other peoples time and your time on wikipedia, take a pause and head to wikidictionary, then return to your cherished FOX news page CrystalizedAngels 11:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)