User talk:Tachyonbursts

Welcome!

Hello, Tachyonbursts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please don't call long term editors in good standing vandals. Please read WP:Vandal. RxS (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long term editors who act as inappropriate as vandals deserve far more scrutiny than any other class of editors. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll forgive me if I am unmoved by an editor with less then 20 edits calling a user in good standing's actions inappropriate. Spend some time editing the encyclopedia and get some experience. Thanks. RxS (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fan club

Send me an email sometime.

-)

Wowest (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable legal threat

Hi Tachyonbursts. This is a legal threat, and unacceptable under one of our most vigorously enforced principles, WP:LEGAL. Constructive and open discussion is impossible if one party resorts to legal threats. You are, of course, free to pursue whatever legal means you want to, but you cannot do or even threaten this while continue to edit Wikipedia. Please retract the statement immediately and confirm this here. If not, you will be blocked. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'll certainly take upon advice and retract inappropriate statement immediately. If you let me, that is. Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia policy is to ask that any editor who makes legal threats immediately stops editing until the threats are resolved. If the editor concerned is not willing to do this voluntarily, will will enforce this policy via blocks. If you are prepared to state without reservation or qualification that you will not be pursuing any legal action related to Wikipedia, then I am happy to unblock you. You have not made the necessary commitment yet. Gwernol 23:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'll post some musica while we wait, ok?

Here's a rarity, if we ever seen one… Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that you get a block notice here. You know you are blocked because you automatically see the block notice when you try to edit. Sarcasm like the above does little to make a case that you are here to edit constructively. I suggest you avoid it. Gwernol 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albright, thanks, here's another pretty, pretty tune… imo it is… Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I mentioned this to the blocking admin and since you have retracted your legal threat, I've unblocked you.

Request handled by: Rjd0060 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about some merry whistles? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the blocking admin to get his input. Gwernol 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks, here's a goldie oldie. Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uf, uf, uf… Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how my particular POV reflects current discussions I'm following via watchlist… Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, if you ban me from editing 9/11 articles I'll have to go straight to arbitration committee along with the whole bunch of editors we've mentioned in last few days. If you choose to enforce arbcom decisions on my account, while failing to do the same with user Aude you'll force me into such action. I'd suggest you take my commitment with good faith in which it was made and let me continue to edit our encyclopedia through decent discussions, such as we had before Aude came along and openly defied consensus. This was a burst. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol I'm certain that unfounded accusations of sock puppetry carry certain weight, if you fellows can't make decision based on commitment shared above, I'll ask for a hearing. Thank you for your understanding. Please, do share your thoughts. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. On studying your editing contributions, its seems likely to me that you have edited on Wikipedia before creating this particular account. Its also fairly clear that you are only interested in editing articles related to 9/11. You have confirmed that you are not interested in the broader project of Wikipedia, only in your ability to push your own point of view on a narrow range of articles. You are, of course, within your rights to go before the arbitration committee - that's what they are there for. Beyond that, I am still going to wait to hear from the blocking admin before taking action. Your continued sarcasm here really isn't helping your case in the slightest. Gwernol 01:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing sarcastic in my latest statements, I've contributed to this project as an anon for years and years (as timed allowed and on various topics), on course of my traveling I've visited darkest corners of the community, so to say. I've started recent discussion on WTC 7 as an IP and I was quite happy to do so. The very fact that I was forced into opening account is as annoying as registrations can be… I'm a busy person, which spends most of his working hours in front of (various) computers. My decision to participate in 9/11 discussion is not extraordinary in any way; your assumption that I'm a single purpose editor is unfounded by all means. Please, try to approach this issue with good faith, I'd say it's the least an admin member can do. After all, this whole issue is crispy clear, and every veteran administrator is experiencing déjà vu as we type. I've showed open contempt for the actions of a particular editor who made gargantuan changes to the heavily disputed article without receiving a single warning, I don't find such double standards acceptable, and I don't think that wider community finds it acceptable. One should not take childish explanations as arguments, one should not be redirected to puny articles which are in far worse state than parent article is, one should not be banned for striving to bring NPOV to unbelievably biased articles. You may take a look at that initial discussion about subject of the ongoing investigation and explain to anyone who is watching this page, where have I committed any misconduct? Before I was forced into one, that is. I'm not pleased with this entropy, I'm not pleased with the conduct of the (some) fellow editors, and I'm definitely not pleased with this disgraceful ban which is forced upon me at the same time in which we are witnessing utter disregard to our policies by single minded editors who impose themselves upon one particular article. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that several long time users don't see this as a clear legal threat. [1] -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still pretty silly. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it could have been sillier… well, my thanks to all of the good folks who shared their opinions there. Tachyonbursts (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mail?

Hi, if you provide an e-mail address under preferences, I would like to contact you. I prefer to not comment here, since I am topicbanned. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom sanctions on 9/11-related pages

As you are an editor involved in conflict on pages related to the September 11th attacks, please review this relevant case decided by the Arbitration Committee. Due to serious and ongoing problems on 9/11-related articles, editors who repeatedly fail to adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral standards on these pages may be subject to editing restrictions up to and including a topic ban or block. Please be aware that this set of articles is a long-standing problem area, and that the tolerance for misbhevaior on these articles is low. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Warning

Regarding these edits:

If You're Into It Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy pursuant to arbitration decision

In light of your persistent combativeness demonstrated at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, you are prohibited from making edits anywhere in the encyclopedia that relate in any way to the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, broadly construed, until May 30, 2008. After that time you are free to resume contributing to those articles but in a collaborative and collegial manner. This remedy has been entered in the log of block, bans, and restrictions for the relevant arbcom case.[2] Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You're banned from 9/11 articles. Please stop posting there; it'd be a shame to have to block you entirely from Wikipedia. Thanks. VegitaU (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should look in the mirror while stating that one. Can you do so, please? Many thanks! Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refereeing

Please do not engage in goading of Tachyonbursts during the time that he is on a topic ban. Indeed, it should go without saying that one should not engage in goading of any editor at any time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll have to insist that this "topic ban" be more than in-name only. -- VegitaU (talk)

Tachyonbursts, keep in mind that your restriction remains in place until it is overturned on appeal. You violated it here.[3] At the next violation the editing restriction will be enforced by a block. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been banned from 9/11 sites. Stop posting in them. VegitaU (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need this sort of confirmation and I don't care, so just do what ever to hex you feel you must. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Well, you did ask, so ....

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated something-or-other. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Black Kite 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though obviously, as you have not actually been community banned, you may feel free to contact me (or any other admin - just point them to this diff) if you wish to be unblocked at any point. Best, Black Kite 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind

It's fine, really, but if I may, Black Kite, could you carry that plea as it was made to be, and therefore leave that last edit to be? The edit was clear. It said>

This article is no good, no good at all. I'd like to be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely because of my decision to state it as it is and bring NPOV to the issue.

To explain, I'd like that sentence noticed there, because, locked as we all are, there will be no other. I've heard they grant the last wishes, regardless of the end. So if you'd be so kind. I'd appreciate it deeply and sincerely, it was my last take, so to say, it shouldn’t be such hard thing to carry. Then again, if you're unable to fulfill such request, I'll understand. No second thoughts. Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you've endorsed my request for a block, could you endorse it as it was made. I'd appreciate an reply, and I'll understand it either way, so to say. Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]