User talk:128.226.160.147

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Therefore; I removed content on this user talk page by unnamed individuals who are illiterate and ill-regarded. Apparently, they lack the skills to read the Talk Page Guidelines.

[edit] Things that happened and are really pointless and trivial--those that posted are responsible for removal

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

Please consult with WP policy on this, but discontinue at once. I have already reported your IP as a vandal. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

The WP policy is too long. Which are you referring to? Give me the link, so I may read it.

Updated: This person, Colin Keigher, never replied to my simple question-- utter lack of cooperation.

Oh, btw, give me one good reason why my talk should stay on your talk page when we are done talking. (Deleted an edit to my writing) Warning: DO NOT EDIT MY WRITING

Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.

[edit] Note

Someone using this IP address posted a message on my user talk page. If you cannot have the courtesy to follow the instuctions and put messages at the bottonm, you will not get a reply. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 3 hours. Please read the WP:RULES, do not edit other editor's User pages (you may post on their talk pages.) Be sure to read WP:3RR and WP:OWN - if you have any questions post them here or on my talk page, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Admins Regarding the Blockage

I was speaking with AFH until this address was blocked. How am I to respond now to reslove the issue prior to being block? This was an unreasonable and ridiculously stupid action. I had made no more edits since I last contacted AFH and was in the process of responding until this different admin, KillerChihuahua, rudely blocked me, without even contacting me to understand the issue.

Now what... ?

I suppose for the sake of argument I should go eat lunch (I am hungry after all) and resolve these issues and obtain explanations for their actions afterwards.

[edit] Talk to Admins Pertaining to the New Impediment

To KillerChihuahua:

KC: "he removed several posts from his talk page"

Liberty: Now, I am not able to remove posts from this address? What's next? The essential point is that if you will have a policy, then you ought to have reasons supporting them. That would be the considerate action to take. There is no good reason why I cannot remove posts from my talk page, and if you provide a good reason, then I will oblige.

Out of everything I wrote, the only thing you considered was "I HATE YOU FOR BANNING ME FOR THREE HOURS." How funny...

KC: "I am guessing that 1) he will not be open to hearing anything from me."

Liberty: You never reply back to me. How would you know? The whole purpose of the message was to hear your opinion on the matter-- but you didn't try. To bad, I hoped you would, now we can't even try, can we (rhetorical question)?

The statement "if I wished, I would sue you," should not be taken out of context.

The full statement:

“...I have many questions but by blocking me, you are inherently silencing my right to speech, and if I wished, I would sue you.

That is a if and that must taken into account. A if is conditional and depending on a condition, that condition being a presence of the wish to sue. I had never stated that I did wish to or will sue or even did take legal action You honestly need to read carefully, and not interpret it in a way you see fit. I was precise in my writing, and the if had its purpose.

KC: "I am posting this here for another, previously uninvolved admin to deal with it - if you can get this person to calm down, and read the policies, and help mentor him some, he may be a helpful contributor."

Liberty: I had looked over the some of the policies and have not written any off-topic comment on any of the articles after I receive a message from the Armadillo. Check for yourself. This shows that I had not repeated any wrongdoing.

KC: "I am leaving his horrendously long and poorly formatted post on my page (most of it is a cut-and-paste letter to another editor..."

First of all, that's not very nice, so why aren't you ban for that? Secondly, I had stated the letter "was for ArmadilloFromHell" so I see no need for the criticism.

KC: "He has repeatedly vandalized another editor's User, not Talk, page, and in this puppy's opinion knew what he was doing. I could be wrong, of course."

The first time I communicated with him on his user page, I saw nothing wrong with it. Soon thereafter, I received a message from ArmadilloFromHelll, and from that point on, I did not again message him on his user page, but rather, his talk page. So then I message ArmadilloFromHell for an explanation about the issue. I received a reply and was about to reply back until you rudely blocked me for no reason. I did absolutely nothing wrong expect for communicating with the Armadillo to know with precision what I did do wrong the first time so I would not do it again.

But you blocked me-- so I couldn't. You used force and coercion, not talks. This is why I despise you. I hope I have explained it fully.

You posted your message on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_anon at 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys blocked this address at 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC), only a few minutes later. I hardly doubt he or she took the time to make a respectable decision. It appears to be a quick, easy, and lazy judgement to me, lacking in depth and reflective thought.

Cyde Weys: "Blocked for 2 fortnights. That should about solve it..."

Liberty: Again, there is no cooperation or communication. After the first blockage had expire, the only thing I should not have done was to tell you honestly and plainly, KillerChihuahua, that I despise you for banning me for three hours without any thought or communication, which is what I was doing with the Armadillo. I despise people like you and Cyde Weys because you make your decision without educated thought, consideration, or mediation.

Although you did have CAPS to go with your blockage, didn't you? I reponsed to your caps with my own. Apparently, you didn't like it; the feeling was mutual. I suppose I could have been a bit less harsh and honest with my writing, and probably less disgruntled, displeased and discontented with how the situation was taken care off, but that doesn't mean you took care of it the proper, civil way.

You did it the hasty, apathetic, and ruthless way. And I don't like you for that. That is not Justice or Fairness.

KC: "(Trolls are only good for reducing the goat population!)"

Liberty: And this is in reference to what exactly? We are not playing D&D here-- we are playing real life, or at least I am.

You have your opinions KillerChihuahua. You think this is just and fair after considering my clarifications? Or do you not know how to consider and understand?

You obliviously are not good people.

I leave this post here until the blockage is lifted or expires, and will check back to see if any of you care to consider and communicate instead of just banning.

How I will sign from now on:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among [People], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

[edit] Hopefully Productive Talks

Note: My replies are in italics and within brackets

Hey, be cordial to the admins. Remember that we run Wikipedia. If you want us to stop blocking you, 1. Consider the fact that you should not rely on a school IP, which is used by tons of kids. 2. Realize that just waiting for the block to end and not repeating the same behaviors helps a lot, and 3. Sign up for an account so we know who is who! WhisperToMe 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, calm down.

You are acting as if this is the end of the world. [Is that how you perceive it? Then I will lessen the writing] I only reverted your edit once, and that was when you made a statement in the article. You have since claimed [I have made no such claims--quote me on why you believe this] that I have reverted edits since then and that is not the case. I am not interested in the CIA article nor do I have anything to contribute to it. In fact, your vandalism--and it is vandalism as defined under WP policies--was something I coincidently came across.

You are banned because you have not bothered to follow any WP policies [That is inaccurate] and have continually harassed anyone who has gone up against you. WP does not give you any sort of freedom of speech, and therefore has done nothing legally wrong [I never stated they had done something legally wrong]. Your legal threats [I say IF, you ought to reread my Talk above as it is explained] are weightless and you're doing the same thing that every other person who gets banned out there does.

You're also banned because you did not heed to my warnings about editing my user page or my talk page. If you wish to have something stricken from a talk page, you may choose to use a strike tag, but you are not to delete comments. Respect what I want in my user page and I'll respect what you want. I do not care what your whole problem is with the CIA article is, but if you're following guidelines that are set by WP, then I am going to care a whole lot less.

Learn how to follow the rules and you'll avoid having problems. It is probably best that you actually bother to register an account, Liberty. :: Colin Keigher 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To request an unblock, post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with the reason you are requesting an unblock. Be aware; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are policies you have repeatedly violated, and I suggest you add those to your reading list. I originally blocked you three hours and told you to read some of the WP:RULES; you chose to remove some posts and warnings from your talk page and go to lunch. Wikipedia is not the US Government; we are not trampling on any of your rights and/or liberties by having rules. You are free to say whatever you want on MySpace, or a blog - but on Wikipedia you must attempt to work within the policies and guidelines or you will be blocked. Its that simple. A more productive way of dealing with being blocked for the very short period of three hours would have been to actually READ the polices I linked to. I didn't post those for no reason; I posted them for your edification. That you have chosen the extremely childish "I HATE YOU" + legal threat response instead of attempting to learn where you transgressed and how to constructively edit Wikipedia has led to a longer block. Use this time to familiarize yourself with the WP:RULES and you will have fewer problems. If you have any questions, feel free to ask - but if you post more trolling I HATE YOU posts, disparaging other editors, it will only confirm that you are a troll and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever. Civil discourse is the communication method used here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]