User talk:NewGuy1001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NewGuy1001, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi NewGuy1001! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm AbigailAbernathy. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 02:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your talkpage[edit]

Stop hand.svgIf you block your talkpage out again, not only will you be reverted, but you will be blocked from editing. Also, I will revert your userpage too. Read WP:Userpage for more. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Rschen7754 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NewGuy1001 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Do you bullies plan out who will gang up on attack next in IRC or something?  NewGuy1001  05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyones unjustifiable actions will be reported straight to Jimbo as far as I'm concerned. Who exactly have been the disruptive ones here? Thanks for further proof of a well coordinated right wing takeover of the English language wikipedia, btw. As far as the block is concerned, "disruptive editing"... of my own page. Who exactly was disrupted by my actions? You people are sorry, sad, bullies. "extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. "

Have fun explaining how fixing my own page to my liking constitutes to above definition of disruptive editing. I sincerely hope a bully like you is removed from your position of authority you enjoy abusing so much.

Decline reason:

Appeals that do not address the stated reason for the block will be declined without consideration. Appeals which are purely disruptive will be declined with prejudice. The next appeal along these lines will very likely be your last. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

Your block[edit]

This page, nor your user page are yours. They are provided to you by Wikipedia for you to use within policy. This is akin to a credit card. You may have 10 credit cards in your wallet, but they do not belong to you. They belong to the bank that issued them, and are yours to use within the framework of the bank's rules for their use. Use them outside that framework, and I promise you it will be picked up by some merchant when you try to use it again.

The talk page, here, is provided for you so other editors can communicate with you. You have absolutely no say about that. That is its sole purpose. Once you have read the communication, you are welcome to delete it if that pleases you. But you have no right whatsoever to render it unusable. That is certainly disruptive, and since YOU made communication impossible, no one could communicate the fact that you were acting improperly to you. The only choice was to block you, which has been done. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you want to edit here, you are expected to understand that you MUST work with other editors. If you cannot do that, and you have made it abundantly clear you can't, you cannot edit here. Either you make a big change in attitude, or there is no need to try to get unblocked. It just won't happen. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much what Gtwfan52 said. Also, your edits before were disruptive as well, which is what led to the indefinite length. --Rschen7754 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"render it unusable." Completely untrue. "Disruptive edits" Which ones were those. Am I the one who is obsessing himself with the business of others? The format of other peoples pages? Do I come and vandalize the format of your user page or talk page? Who's gone out of their way to prod and obsess over completely harmless actions that do not pertain or relate to themselves?

Let just say that blocked or unblocked, doesn't make any difference to me. I already had no faith in Wikipedia to being with. I do however honestly believe that you guys are bullies and people like you are why Wikipedia has declined and will continue to decline. This single case means nothing, this just a minor "proof of concept" of a larger issues going on within en.wikipedia as a whole. A serious issue that needs to be dealt with by upper management. Believe it or not guys, there is more to reality than your feelings and opinions. "fancies himself the super nerd" - thank you for telling me what I think, God. I don't expect you to be sympathetic because I already know what is going on here, in terms of well coordinated action that is not without rhyme or reason. You people are here for a very distinct reasons and it's not to make this place more better or more reflective of the truth, you are here to push private agendas. And supposing that isn't true, then now you understand how ridiculous it is to assume things about people whom you know nothing about. What other ridiculous things were said on the admin page? "we might be in for some real problems because this guy thinks he's special..etc..etc" ... No thanks (I have already wasted more than enough time here) that would the job of good Christians like yourselves because I'm sure that what Jesus would have done. Take a look in the mirror and think, if you're capable of it. I have

The only thing about this whole ordeal that irritates me is that I was working on an addition for an article that obviously isn't going to be posted now. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better, more neutral place. You're doing a great job.

Talk page access revoked[edit]

This has my spidey sense going off as a troll-sock. It is pretty obvious this user isn't new, and at least to me, obvious this isn't the first time they have been indef blocked. As such, I've revoked talk page access. Anyone is free to revert me if they feel there are holes in my logic here, and I would encourage a CU to poke around if they were so inclined. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 07:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)