User talk:Georgewiliamherbert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
stop fucking with my userpage. That warning was given SOLELY as a vindictive attack, and was thoroughly unwarranted. I'm removing vandalism. If you keep reverting it, I'll keep REREVERTING it. Until you know the situation, stop it.ThuranX 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you looking to get blocked? That's the way to do it. Georgewiliamherbert 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If you continue to vandalize my talk page with false warnings and reversions to another guy's vandalism, I'll have no choice but to go to the arbiters for examinations of your possible sock puppetry and harrassment.ThuranX 14:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Considering I haven't used any sock puppets (whatever they are), I'm sure they will be more interested in your vandalism. I haven't done any. The warning left on your page was legitimate, because you did vandalize the Gorilla talk page. You know it, and I know it. Go to the arbiters if you want, but you'll only be doing yourself in. Georgewiliamherbert 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong again. That vandalism warning was given because instead of reverting the direct attack and leaving legitimate conversation, people have eliminated the entire situation, reflecting an asumption of BAD faith, in opposition to the good faith premise if Wikipedia. I reverted teh relevant informative section, including the original question and the decent answer. In reply to my controlling the situation, I was attacked with an ILLEGITIMATE warning, and reverted it. It's MY talk page, and I'll remove any quantity of vandalism I so choose. You are thoroughly outside this situation and continue to make harrassing attacks. as such you've already been submitted to the administrators. I don't need some fifth wheel interjecting himself into the situation as a busybody, which you've been. Go find some newb to hassle. The person who submitted the vandalism tag hasn't seen fit to contest my reversion, because he knows I'm rght about the situation. Do youself a favor and walk away.ThuranX 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not the only one to think what you did was vandalism. UtherSRG thought so too. Go to whoever you want, they'll back me up, and you'll find yourself first warned, then blocked if you continue. I'll leave your talk page alone, but only because I know the administrators will set you straight. Georgewiliamherbert 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong again. That vandalism warning was given because instead of reverting the direct attack and leaving legitimate conversation, people have eliminated the entire situation, reflecting an asumption of BAD faith, in opposition to the good faith premise if Wikipedia. I reverted teh relevant informative section, including the original question and the decent answer. In reply to my controlling the situation, I was attacked with an ILLEGITIMATE warning, and reverted it. It's MY talk page, and I'll remove any quantity of vandalism I so choose. You are thoroughly outside this situation and continue to make harrassing attacks. as such you've already been submitted to the administrators. I don't need some fifth wheel interjecting himself into the situation as a busybody, which you've been. Go find some newb to hassle. The person who submitted the vandalism tag hasn't seen fit to contest my reversion, because he knows I'm rght about the situation. Do youself a favor and walk away.ThuranX 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: whoever this account is (was, now, see block log), is not me. Yay. I have a wikiimpersonator. I guess I have "arrived". Georgewilliamherbert 02:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to burst your bubble, but you were not being impersonated. Unless you're the guy who made that Amazon list, Key Aerospace Books. Just the luck of the draw, I guess, happening on that list at the same time I was thinking of making an account here. The three of us were using the same computer, but are not the same person. I guess if my name just happened to be identical to yours (it isn't, of course), I'd be out of luck. Georgewiliamherbert 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Uh. Dude. Duuude. Yes, that's my Amazon list. This is my real name. I've been using it on the Internet consistently since 1987.
Wow. What a nerd. Called someone "dude." What a loser! 70.50.54.24
-
- I don't know what your name is, but you're making incoherent statements here that aren't going to do you or any of your sockpuppets any good in the long term. Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's funny that you think you're worthy of being impersonated. The statements are not incoherent just because you say so; you're just too dumb to understand. I don't have any sockpuppets - but then I'm using the actual definition of the word. I've been online a hell of a lot longer than you (1987? Ha ha ha), although it didn't resemble the internet of today. You're so damn stupid, I feel dirty just having used an account that had nearly your name. I pity you. 70.53.111.253 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just in case anyone considers leaving anything further here, I'll no longer be checking it (there's not much point in doing so). I should reiterate that I feel dirty for having had a username similar to that dick Georgewilliamherbert, whom I had never heard of when I created this account. At first, I had the two Ls in the name, but there already existed an account of that name; I should have picked something totally different. I didn't realize he had a reputation around here for such gross stupidity, or I wouldn't have wanted to risk being tainted. Georgewiliamherbert 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's funny that you think you're worthy of being impersonated. The statements are not incoherent just because you say so; you're just too dumb to understand. I don't have any sockpuppets - but then I'm using the actual definition of the word. I've been online a hell of a lot longer than you (1987? Ha ha ha), although it didn't resemble the internet of today. You're so damn stupid, I feel dirty just having used an account that had nearly your name. I pity you. 70.53.111.253 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what your name is, but you're making incoherent statements here that aren't going to do you or any of your sockpuppets any good in the long term. Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Your username (Georgewiliamherbert) has been blocked indefinitely because it is either inappropriate or too similar to an existing username (see our blocking policy for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See Wikipedia:Username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you.
Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible — if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators).
If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, please add the following to your user talk page: {{Username change request|new username}} (or {{ucr|new username}} for short). This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. If you wish to change to a new username, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for information. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is a lot easier to simply create a new account.
