User talk:TraviaNightmare

everybody im travian :D

i just joind so dont start hazing me :P

September 2010

Do not remove other people's comments from article talk pages. There was no reason the IPs comments should have been removed. You have already been informed, and your previous removal of them was reverted as well. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To provide some detail on this, this was the original edit in which you removed the IPs comments, this was the original, though rather direct notice that the IP left you, instructing you not to remove talkpage comments, and this was your second removal of the talkpage comments, which included the edit summary: im undoing your edit in good faith my friend please dont take offense i have slaved over a reply to you and sent it please reply.

Edit summaries are not replies to discussion. If you have something to add to the discussion, add it on the talkpage. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your reply on my talkpage:

It is not a contest to see how many people you can get to view that specific article.
The opinion was not irrelevant. It was a claim that contradicted another claim that needs to be addressed. The IP was not making the talk page look like a forum. The IP was raising a perfectly reasonable issue. Read WP:SOURCE.
Exactly where did I threaten you? Please provide a diff.

Hazardous Matt (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last reply on my talk page, you really need to disengage this WP:BATTLE you're crusading for. If by returning to Wikipedia with "patriotic warriors" means you intend to storm the article with individuals who are going to follow what you've been doing and delete legitimate contributions and talk page comments from other editors, you will quickly run into problems. That will not be looked upon well by the administrative staff. I see WP:AGF being mentioned a lot, however deleting talk page comments that contradict what you feel should be in the article is the exact opposite of acting in good faith.

This is not a war. Stop calling it a war. Don't consider yourself a warrior. This is an encyclopedia. It's a collaborative effort. You do not get to dictate who says what on the talk pages. That's a violation of WP:OWN. You don't get to unilaterally decide a specific book is not a reliable source over a website you like to visit. That's a violation of WP:RS. And posting links that you insist people read before editing the article because you believe it will change the editor's perspective on the subject is bordering on violating WP:NPOV. And as you've been told numerous times, stop insulting and threatening people, which is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL.

Consider the advice that you've been given by several editors. And I mean consider it. Re-read the advice. Think about what's being said. You've already been given a blatant warning below. I don't believe that editor is going to take the time to give you another. Step back from the article. Stop obsessing over it. I strongly recommend you consider the way you edit Wikipedia. That's assuming you intend to make serious contributions. Hazardous Matt (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TraviaNightmare. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR

Please note that you (and the IP) have both reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours. Wikipedia has a policy called the 3 revert rule, which you can read about here. In short, please note that you may not revert the article again today. If you do so, you will be reported for edit warring. For future reference, you can also be reported for edit-warring even if you do not cross the "bright line" of 3 reverts in one day. But crossing the bright line is strictly forbidden except in cases of reverting vandalism. Per WP:VANDAL, the items you are reverting are absolutely not vandalism--they are a piece of content you disagree with. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead of reverting. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Do not refer to the ethnicity of other editors, as you did again on Talk:Bill Goldberg. You do not know our ethnicity, nor if you did is it relevant. Second, do not threaten to disrupt the article. Please read WP:CIVIL. You are not being civil, and your actions are making it extremely difficult to edit collaboratively. I will reply to your points about the source and quote itself on the article's talk page. But you are treating this like it's some sort of WP:BATTLE. It is not. No one is fighting you. We are merely trying to make the article better. Perhaps we disagree on how to do this--disagreement is natural in collaborative work. If you cannot work collaboratively, then your contributions to the project will not be welcomed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Since you have now reverted the page 4 times in 24 hours, a violation of the 3-revert rule, I have reported you to WP:3RRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule and exhibiting a battlefield mentality on Bill Goldberg. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

stop this please this is madness i violated the 3 edit rule but i did it only to make a minor edit and to remove an irrelevant source(ive also added a relevant source in place of it) the user that requested me only warned me once but he didnt warn me that he was going to block me for this slight mistake

Decline reason:

You were amply warned; deleting the warnings doesn't change that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:46, 24 September 2010 (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.

everybodee im travian :D

i just joind so dont start hazing me :P

Bill Goldberg

Hey there! I read your request, and I'll be on it soon. I want to take a longer look at the edit histories between all the people involved before I make any statements on the editing wars.

You might be interested to know that the 173 record is not kayfabe, and was calculated by hardcore fans who watched endless hours of TV, pay-per-view, house shows, to compile the record. The book citation is useful because it shows how unprepared WCW was for the obsessive smart marks who read internet forums and used their long schedules to create running records like this. It does not disprove the record in any way, however.

Check out this piece of news on Goldberg!--Screwball23 talk 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Block discussion

Okay, first, I did warn you before requesting the block. I pointed you to the exact policy, and that policy is absolutely clear--never, unless stopping vandalism (which you were not), revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Good faith is not an exception. I didn't want to block you, but I had to request it, because you were continue to edit war. My hope was that a very short block (24 hours is, you have to admit, a pretty short time to be away from WP) would help you calm down and change your approach. Unfortunately, your comments on Goldberg's talk page indicate you have not.

Please do read through all of WP:Edit warring, because I want you to be 100% clear that edit warring is simply not allowed. There are specific steps we can take if you are not happy with the compromise I have offered. Specifically, the next step, if you insist that my compromise version is wrong, is to create a Request for Comment. An RfC is basically a request to the community at large to come look at the dispute, and help provide new ways of looking at the article, provide possible compromises, and give opinions on the various options. If you ask me here or on the article's talk page, I will happily create an RfC on this issue.

Also, you asked for my help in citing sources. I will happily do that as well. Please tell me what sources you want to cite, and I will show you how to format them. It would probably be easiest if you put the sources here, so that I can teach you here and not clog up the talk page.

Finally, please understand, I really am not trying to fight with you. I really do want you to continue to help edit this article. But you do need to learn that editing on Wikipedia is not a battle, a war, or a wrestling match. If you ever feel like you've "won," because your side is in the article, that probably means you did something wrong. We only win by working together, collaboratively, to make the best possible encyclopedia. Since we all have opinions, this invariably means that some of our opinions will not be reflected in the article, because the article must reflect all significant, reliable opinions on a subject. Please, please, drop the idea that this is a battle. Having done this for a while, I guarantee that if you continue to treat the article as a battle, you will keep getting blocked, for longer and longer periods of time. It's perfectly acceptable to argue, dispute, and disagree. But we don't fight, war, or battle. Please. You obviously know a lot about the subject, so I'd rather have you here and providing your knowledge in a cooperative way than eventually removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for gross personal attacks [1] and continuing to edit in bad faith. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

this request goes out personally to magogogre (the person who bloked me twice) : what do you hope to accomplish by blocking me for a whole week? thats just too harsh are you trying to block me indefinitely? you might as well do it if you want to but know this you are half wrong on this block i HAVE NEVER EDITED IN BAD FAITH i swear on that. the personal attack i admit it was all me. if you dont believe that im not a bad faith vandal then ask the other editor if i am a vandal im sure he would tell you that im not considering hes at least trying to stay on the neutral side. the personal attack was done for a stupid reason he called me a racist so i just felt it funny to do it for comedic reasons and he has a dynamic ip too and he didnt report to the talk page before editing when i asked him so nicely (i EVEN SAID PLEASE) for gods sakes im only 12 years old i find it impossible to restrict my personal opinions but i ALWAYS try to keep a neutral point of view in the content of the article im editing if you want to lose me as an editor you might as well permanently block me if not then please unblock me the other user has said that he is going to teach me how to cite sources and i want to learn how to do that how can i do that in my current state when you have put me in jail twice for the crime i did not commit? i have been constructive in all my edits and im requesting... no im begging you to unblock me i promise i wont attack back even if i was attacked personally so are you going to turn down my apology for some loophole reason or are you going to set me free so i can protect wikipedia the choice is yours to make

Decline reason:

"Hairy Malaysian monkey balls?" Are you seriously asking for an unblock after that? This has nothing to do with Magog the Ogre, or even the other editor. We have a dispute resolution process, you are never allowed to act with such intense personal attacks. We have some wise, well-behaved, intelligent 12 years olds around here - if you don't realize at age 12 that the behaviour you showed should never exist, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

yes yes iam seriously asking for an unblock even after the "hairy monkey balls" insult read between the lines tell me what you see. it is an apology if anything i have told you i regretted personal attacks that ive made. yes i know age is not a reason i was only telling you that its hard for me to restrict my opinions if anything my edits were always unbiased and ive always focused on content when it came to articles but that specific dynamic ip using editor kept on reverting my edits without giving a reason why am i the only person who has to deal with a block is it because im a registered contributor? is it because i wasnt editting in bad faith? because if you accuse me of the only one who is involved in personal attacking you are wrong he attacked me first and i told you i didnt really mean what i said but regardless an insult is an insult and i know when ive done a bad thing. to the commenter below: why are you accusing me of "going to use meatpuppets" what are you trying to accuse me of? im unrestricted sure but a bad editor i am not. now on to the subject at hand what are you hoping to accomplish by declining my requests is it not good enough? is it undeserving of your approval? even another editor has said to me that blocking is preventative not punative so why are you pursuing with this nay further i have answered your questions and i believe you arent giving an answer thats worthy. read my earlier request carefully and read this one too. i will be unblocked later anyway and i would rather it be sooner rather than later. if you look at the facts you will realize that i was blocked for 2 reasons 1 for personal insults and 2 for continuing to edit in bad faith(which i have never done) now this is relevant because this is cited as a reason. i always thought that you got warned at least once before being blocked for this long especially if my crime wasnt vandalism or bad faith editting if you cant see that im not a bad editor then what is the point of me writing this reconsideration request? stop trying to discourage me from requesting an unblock because that is what seems to be what you are doing. i have always tried to improve wiki ever since i joined so i ask you im telling you the choice is yours do what you will but know what i have a long way to go im not perfect but i will improve so stop implying that wikipedia is not a place for me. i have answered your questions with unbiased reasonable replys i believe its worthy of your time now please take your time to think about this and let me out so that i may continue editting. also note that i have never insisted that my opinions are the right ones never have i insisted that but i only told that dynamic ip using editor that his source is unreliable and that he needs to reconsider before applying his unconstructive edits as real evidence but he kept on reverting my edits and putting his without even a hint of trying to solve this. i am far from perfect but i dont think he deserves to go around editing like this. i have always tried to improve wikipedia whether it be in little or big ways i have always tried and im only writing this because i listened to you people i listened to your decline request to i ask again please take your time and reconsider the choice is yours to make

Decline reason:

I am pleased to see that this unblock request is expressed in less uncompromisingly aggressive terms than some of your earlier editing, and also you say you regret making personal attacks, so there appears to be some progress. However, nothing you say indicates that you have dropped your belligerent approach, in which you view editing Wikipedia as a "war" in which you fight against other editors to impose your view. I strongly suggest that you consider the offer made below by Magog the Ogre before considering making any more unblock requests. If you can indicate that you really have taken those points onboard then I will be perfectly willing to consider unblocking you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2010 (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.

Whether you have edited in bad faith is not very relevant, as it is not the reason for the block. Apart from the personal attack which was the direct cause of the block, you indicate an unwillingness to cooperate or consider the opinions of other editors (your view is "the correct one" and if anyone else posts anything you disagree with then it is "irrelevant", and you have the right to remove it). You are repeatedly belligerent and uncivil. You have even indicated that you view the process of interaction with other editors as a "war", and unambiguously indicated your intention of trying to forcibly impose you view in the face of disagreements. You have indicated an intention of introducing meat puppets to support you in this aim. Under the circumstances a one week block seems if anything rather minimal. I strongly suggest that you spend the rest of the week carefully considering how to edit in a more cooperative spirit, so that when you return after the week you can fit into the way we work on Wikipedia, and make constructive contributions. It would be a pity if you turned down this opportunity, and persisted in your belligerent approach until you were blocked indefinitely: I hope you will not make that mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above request is too long and too confused for me to review. Please see WP:GAB. Sandstein 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TriviaNightmare, may I make some suggestions for you? It's a lot of reading, I know, but it's important

Read WP:BATTLEGROUND - Summary: Wikipedia is not a battleground. We're here to edit together.
Read WP:CIVIL - Summary: be nice. Don't say something to someone you wouldn't say in front of your mother.
Read WP:EW - Summary: lots of reversion will get you blocked.
Read the process on dispute resolution - Summary: discuss the options on the talk page before you revert
Read WP:MASTADON - Summary: if you find yourself getting angry, take an hour away. The world won't end if you don't get your version immediately.

If you promise you've read and you will absolutely never violate any of our above policies and guidelines I might be willing to unblock you a few days early, as a show of good faith to you that we want you as an editor. Sometimes, it's easy to let your temper get the best of you, and if you let it do so, there are consequences for you being allowed to be here. Do you understand all this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to "why are you accusing me of "going to use meatpuppets" what are you trying to accuse me of?" I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am simply referring to what you yourself have announced. In this edit you unambiguously state that you intend to bring other editors in to support your campaign. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

EVERYBODEE IM TRAVIAAN THE NIGHTMARE :D ive been busy IRL so i havent been able to get to the computer much i hope you can understand now back to the task at hand: now ive figured you all out kindness is the only way to win you over :D kindness you shall get my fellow gentlemen :) ahh now you're really showing the love here and not a single piece of that "wikipedia isn't the place for you" mumbo jumbo. guess Travian is not the only one who has changed his attitude a bit now eh? :D Travian is glad hes glad. i wasnt aggressive really not in the unblock requests anyway. the rest was for pure unadulterated fun believe it or not but we will get to that part in a minute k?. oh really? nothing i say huh? Travian is sad so sad :( but he'll survive ;) no not really it all stemmed from one thing to another you will see ill try to make you understand this in a most less confusing way as possible k?. im reading it as we speak ill be on it in a few secs. < this reply is to JBW the following is to my fellow blockee magog: yes you may make some suggestions my fellow gentleman :D you may be happy to know that ive read them even before i joined wiki and ive read them just now just because you asked so nicely here are the replys in an orderly fashion please take the time to read it my dear sir 1. i understand the battleground thing was just a show of enthusiasm we'll get to that in a minute 2. now i dont have a mother(or parents for that matter) but i know where you are getting at: dont try to hurt other peoples feelings or as you may put it or potty it ;) : dont be a potty mouth 3. :( now this is the part Travian has a little problem with i feel that you should have been a wee bit more lenient with me on my first block(not this one) you should have warned me before blocking since it was my first time anyway but i guess blocking all those other vandals has some kind of a PTSD effect on wiki admins dont worry ill make the explanation short : please tolerate Travian he only made 4 reverts he was warned ONLY once for reverting 3 times and at that time he didnt check his talk page so he didnt know if he had a warning as he was busy browsing but that wasnt a violation it was a fair warning no doubt but... at that exact time i was going to modify my 4th edit(it was not a revert) so naturally i wouldnt be able to see the warning i only saw the orange message after i finished editing and saved the page after i did that i got another warning only it wasnt a warning it said that i have been reported for editting 4 times boy did i wish it was a warning though :P now i felt that i deserved a warning before i got blocked a warning by YOU yourself we are all guys here arent we (even though im 12 i still do count :D ) my point is we are all reasonable men here i would have stopped had i known that i was doing harm and not the good i envisioned. so please i would like to ask you tolerate me of you will ill talk more about this below 4. oh i humbly apologize but its just that that situation was unique that particular user wasnt going to listen anyway but believe me another user spoke to him giving a link to disprove his point but he kept insisting he was right i assumed good faith in that had he seen that link he would not have continued with his points (as he had been reverted by many others before too) but i was clearly wrong on that part so i reverted his edits and he kept reverting mine so i posted a comment on his talk page only to get insulted. i would have welcomed him with the "welcome to wikipedia" thingy with the pretty pictures but alas i had no knowledge of how to do that. but i did make a little mistake though that comment i made may have been a bit personal but it was not an attack no was it insulting but it was accurate notheless and when he insulted me back i thought of ignoring him but knowing that he could easily be aggravated i just couldn't pass this offer up just for the giggles but i know when im guilty regardless of reason if you may ask why i did it i would answer with IDIFTL :D 5.mastodon lol thats funny(did you know scientists are running an extinct cloning program? so the mastodons might indeed be coming back) oh no no my fellow editor you got it all wrong i wasnt really angry i did it for the laughs it was funny even if it was a little bit after all creating a page with "hairy monkey balls" did make me giggle :P i hope someone besides me got some laughs ;) but alas i know when ive done something bad read the "in a nutshell" part for details of you are confused yes ive read them now i cant guarantee that but i promise i will not be a potty mouth k? i cannot guarantee the other part because i may accidentaly edit 4 times in a row but i want you to be a bit lenient with me on this last part now ive seen people right here on wiki who made more than 10 reverts not get immediately blocked for violating this policy so i would ask that you be nice and give a warning if i violate the 3RR accidentally it would mean a lot to me as well as it would be a show of good faith i promise i wont revert excessively but if i lose count like last time i would like if you gave me a warning instead just to be a nice guy and as a show of faith ;) oh no no it had nothing to do with temper after all "how angry can you get at a computer screen"? :P i just wanted to fool around and i loved every second of it :D i assure you there are no consequences what so ever if there are you could take them up with me personally. this reply is for JBW meaty puppets : oh i never meant that my dear fellow if anything that statement is ambiguous at best not the other way around :D what i meant by that was that i was going to get other experienced editors help to cite links and stuff for me on that particular page so that i may remove the biased source after all one single book by an author is no evidence when it isnt really proven right? especially when its about BLP am i right my boy? :D i would like to share some personal info of what went down IRL and why it took me a long time to reply k? it was school for one thing and lots of homework(which i have no intention of finishing but have done halfway anyway) and it was my part time job to pay for my stuff. but thats not the big reason though the real reason is that my apartment had electrical problems now im only 12 years old and it wasnt really "my" apartment to begin with so i waited for 2 days finally i dared myself to do it and i finished it without risking electrocution ;) so you may see how all this factors into this right? im sorry for the delays and i hope you will still be there when you get this request (i was actually going to ask you people to extend my block just so i can reply to you later :P until i realized the stupitdity of that that is lol) might i ask you one thing to do please consider watching this video: "http://youtube.com/watch?v=HIf_4x9tTq0" now half of why i ask you this is very relevant because this is the root of where we are today it all stemmed from this but mainly i just want you to watch it its just a 2 minute video and a want to see a persons first thoughts on seeing such an awesome thing i really hope you will i hope everybody will watch :D one more thing do any of you have knowledge of wisdom teeth? there was some pain in my mouth and i noticed 4 extra teeth(molars to be exact) so i searched wiki(just so i dont have to go to a dentist ;) lol ) and it said that it only happens to near adult people now this worries me i know one has nothing to do with the other but its much appreciated as its my health and im only 12 years old to sandstein: ahh im sorry buddy its hard to understand when you didnt stick around for episode 1 :P here it is in a NUTSHELL: i want to say ive made a mistake and it wont happen again so i feel that this block is no longer relevant please reconsider my block as TRAVIAN is willing to pay for his warcrimes dearly Travian knows he made a mistake and promises not to be a potty mouth again and be civil and if i ever encounter a problem i will rely on you my elders for myselfs and wiki's safety so once again EVERYBODEEE IM TRAVIAN :D heres my request: there is something called adoption? am i eligible? do i deserve it? would any of you want to adopt TRAVIAN? i understand when you say wikipedia is not a batteground but it is always an information battleground but i know what you mean you are trying to tell me wiki is not about winning i perfectly understand ive understood it from the beginning now heres the relevant part wiki may not be about success but this unblock request is so im writing to you now while i still can(before the block expires) :P IM SORRY I TRIED MY BEST TO WRITE IT BUT I JUST COULDNT LEAVE SPACES I DONT KNOW WHY THIS BAD LUCK STRUCK TRAVIAN :( i would like you all to discuss this and approach a unanimous decision on whether to block me even further or to release me i would like you all to collaborate on this one and thing carefully if it is for better for wikipedia or not :D now gentlemen if you excuse me ill be gone out to lunch when i get back ill be painting a mental picture of good news i hope you will not dissapoint as i have not dissapointed you in this request :D

Decline reason:

I don't see any reason to lift your block. TN X Man 18:07, 29 September 2010 (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'm not an Administrator, but I highly recommend you re-factor your unblock request to something that complies with WP:GAB. I don't expect any Administrator will wish to read through that. Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, and I confirm this. Not read. Not saying this to be mean, just saying that I'm not going to spend the time churning through a run on sentence on the off chance of lifting a 1 week block that we're 3 days into. If you were indeff'd or something, maybe. Pare it down. Syrthiss (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

OK, I've read your unblock request, and I'm going to unblock you, because you've promised to be more civil. Something of note:

Before you even mentioned the bit about user adoption, it was something that occurred to me as well. You could definitely use for adoption. Please see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. User:Qwyrxian seems to be quite willing to help, as you can see below and above.
Frankly, your writing style betrays a young age and lack of experience (we have some 12 year olds that write better than that, but it's OK, I was a terrible writer when I was young). Please, before making any edits to articles that involve your own writing, go through with the adoption thing.
Thank you for considering everything I wrote. But further personal attacks attacks and edit warring will not be tolerated. If another user just reverts your edits and you find that inappropriate, you can seek dispute resolution. If that's too complicated, try posting at the help desk; they can answer any questions you have, and are very friendly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to above statement

Let me just change what I said one little bit--I'm not going to provide you with any help if you continue to attack other users. So if you want my help, you have to promise to stop the personal attacks. I believe that basic civility is a fundamental necessity for working on Wikipedia; if you don't have that, then no amount of me helping you with references, dispute resolution, etc., will matter, because you'll just end up indefinitely banned eventually anyway. So hopefully after the week is done, you'll be ready to start editing productively, and we can then work together to improve both your editing skills and the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see (I think) that you promised in your unblock request not to make personal attacks. I am still willing to help. Since the Goldberg article seems to be your most serious concern, I recommend that you should come back to the talk page (not the article) and discuss the source in question as well as the phrasing in the lead. Later today, I'll try to add a new section to that talk page to help clarify the various points we (that is, all interested editors) need to discuss. Of course, in the meanwhile, you are welcome to ask me any questions here or on my talk page. Lastly, I can understand, if you don't want to be "adopted" by me (I'm not actually a part of the formal adoption program) because of our history, in which case I recommend you follow Magog's request and see if you can find a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]