User talk:Moonbatssuck

October 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 350.org, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

350.org[edit]

The fliers were not part of the 350.org campaign. Adding that to the page is vandalism. Stop immediately. ► RATEL ◄ 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratel[edit]

Please, help me eliminate the vandalism on the Taxpayer March on Washington page. We can't have an entire section with pictures about signs that the organizers did not organize. Those signs were not part of the FreedomWorks protest. I expect you to be there, cleaning up this vandalism, ASAP. --Moonbatssuck (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 350.org. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ► RATEL ◄ 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Taxpayer March on Washington, you will be blocked from editing. APK because, he says, it's true 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

Hello, Moonbatssuck. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. APK because, he says, it's true 16:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Cut out the disingenuous (read: untrue) citing of Ratel's agreement when he is clearly against your opinion. Do this again, you will be blocked for disruption. Tan | 39 16:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tan, cut out the disingenuous (read: untrue) citing of Ratel's disagreement when he is clearly in agreement with my opinion. Do this again, you will be blocked from my adoration due your foolishness.

Where did Ratel disagree with anything I cited him as saying? Have a verifiable source of me saying he said anything he did not? If not, please don't call me disingenuous. Much love,--Moonbatssuck (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick look at his talk page history and the edits therein shows you and him are not exactly best buds. A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your interpretation of events! Ratel and I have been on the mission to clear off unofficial demonstrations signs since... yesterday. True, he tried to take them off a liberal group's advertioral and I tried to take them off a conservative group's article. But that just means that I'm reaching across the partisan divide and trying to work together. But alas, Ratel's hand will only work on articles that agree with him (and will keep doing so until they agree completely). I consider Ratel to be my closest Wikipedian bud, ever! --Moonbatssuck (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I still want to hear from Ratel on his interpretation of events - I have some suspicions that not everything you are doing here is in good faith. I could very well be mistaken. Until we hear from Ratel, consider my warning above struck. Tan | 39 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tan. Keep it real in WikiWorld. --Moonbatssuck (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Your account is blocked indefinitely because it appears you are importing an off-wiki criminal harassment campaign into Wikipedia.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your username is offensive, as it is a thinly veiled reference to "liberals", which seems to be your M.O. per this edit summary. You've also be sanitizing a right wing article by removing properly sourced negative material.[2] On the whole your contribution pattern is virtually 100% disruptive. Wikipedia is not for political battles. Please take your approach to another site, such as a blog, where it may be welcomed. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia, please explain how your contributions will be different going forward, and suggest a new username. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki?[edit]

What does that mean?

Off-wiki means in real life. There's an ongoing battle between liberals and conservatives. We editors do not want any part of it. Please don't bring that fight here. Either you can edit neutrally, or not at all. Your username suggests that "Moonbats" (a/k/a liberals) "Suck". We do not allow usernames that desparage other users. I'd block somebody who had the username "YankeesSuck" if they started trouble at the Derek Jeter article. You are welcome to start a new account with a better username. If you do, please don't continue to battle. Most likely you should avoid controversial subjects until you become more familiar with how things work here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 28 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was answering your questions, but then you blocked me so that I couldn't answer. Nice due process. First, you are wrong about my username. Please see its etymology. I am referring to the bat-like people that were supposed to be on the moon, circa 1840. They are fictional. So far as I know, it is impossible for fictional being to be offended. There are no moonbat members of Wikipedia. You made an assumption about its meaning, based on your own biases. Your assumption was wrong. Second, there are registered usernames like "screwbush," "republicon," and others that have not been blocked for "offensive" names. But, obviously, since I was NOT referring to liberals, this shouldn't even be a concern. Third, I made an edit on the 350 page that has been sustained against those who wanted it to be an ad. I added a valuable piece of information that was sourced from two verifiable sources, not from 350.org. Why do you not have a problem with those who wanted to remove this perfectly legit piece of info? The people who tried to keep it off tried intimidating me by calling it "vandalism." They threatened to block me for adding it in a respectful way. Is that acceptable behavior? That "vandalism" is now an accepted part of the story. Fourth, I REALLY did think that Ratel had a good point. That is why I applied it to the Taxpayer March on Washington article. But it was then taken down. I did not do a revert because I was informed that Ratel's statement about Wikipedia policy (only official signs can be listed) was wrong. Fifth, Off-wiki harassment? I was the one adding IN the fact about the criminal investigation and I'm the one being accused? That doesn't make any sense. Sixth, I am not using Wikipedia for "political battles." I am adding verifiable, notable information. Sure, I made the mistake of trusting Ratel on the whole no unofficial sign rule, but now that it's been corrected, I won't make that mistake twice. Look at Ratel's edit history on that article. Are you honestly going to tell me that he isn't fighting a political battle? All of his edits, across all kinds of articles are in defense of liberals. That's fine. He is attempting to bring fairness to certain stories. I am as well. Seventh, since Ratel is obviously wrong about Wikipedia policy, I will not bother to ask his help. I will stay off his talk page, because, frankly he's not a reliable source of information on how things work here. I do not want to follow his advice and mistakenly bring down the Wiki quality, as I did on the Taxpayer March on Washington article.

Decline reason:

Your edit history is not consistent with this explanation. Your edits indicate that your goals are not the creation of a reliable, neutral encyclopedia, but that your goals are to promote a specific political viewpoint. This is not consistent with Wikipedia's goals, and since your edits were becoming disruptive, a block is appropriate. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Jehochman stated that I could create a new user name and "behave." Why am I unable to do so? I agree that what I said to Ratel might have been interpreted in the wrong way. So I won't deal with him. Instead, I will try to stick to making important and verifiable contributions to Wikipedia. I will try to not make statements again that could be interpreted as offensive. I would like to be able to create a new username. Also, please note that I have tried to use the talk pages on articles many times to seek consensus. The 350 page is a perfect example of editors doing edits on an issue where there is an open discussion. The verifiable, notable piece of info I posted has been removed, despite an admin supporting it. I am not trying to push off responsibility for the disruption I now see I inadvertently caused. I am merely pointing out that the first -- please verify this -- threat to block me came from Ratel after I made a completely legitimate edit. That edit was supported by editors.

Decline reason:

See my decline on your other account. Only request unblocking from one account. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:40, 28 October 2009 (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.

Anyway, I created a new username as suggested by Jehochman. I will try to do all of you right by this one. Love always, --Idetestlunarbats (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your refusal to change to a neutral username as well as continued disruption, I have now hardblocked this account. MuZemike 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]