User talk:Handface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Help me 2 Refutation 3 Again, I must ask for reasonableness 4 Please be reasonable 5 Unblock 6 Unblock request 7 Great 8 Notified user - page blanking 9 warning 10 Re: Hurricane Floyd 11 No Personal Attacks 12 Blah, blah, blah 13 Barney & Friends 14 Blocked for 24 hours 15 Blocked for 48 hours 16 Tagging articles for speedy deletion 17 Get a Sense of Humor 18 Brokeback Mountain 19 Civility 20 Rush Limbaugh 21 Yet more personal attacks 22 J.C. Clark 23 Username 24 Bill Clinton 25 Community ban

[edit] Help me

I understand that I am probably annoying people by posting tags on this page. But I have reviewed the block log and seen people who have been blocked for the same reason I have been (personal attack compounded with a sockpuppet), and they received a finite block with a reset (for the sockpuppet). I am requesting similar treatment. Going over the Wikipedia policies for the remedy for sockpuppets used in evading blocks, the importance of following procedure on Wikipedia, Gwernol's inability to articulate a factual and reasonable explanation for my block, and the nature of the incongruous handling of this situation, I think an administrator should reduce the length of my block. I have no history of vandalism, create useful articles, make good edits, and have not made any unprovoked attacks against other users. I think I have demonstrated I am a useful contributor to this project. Thanks. Handface 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can try using the {{unblock}} template, but I think block durations are purely the discretion of the admin involved and are not necessarily standardized based on other cases, especially when there are multiple factors. However, unblock requests are generally respected if they are legitimate, so I suggest that, first. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refutation

Now that I have refuted all of Gwernol's arguments, what is the appropriate procedure for having my account unblocked? Handface 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly you have refuted none of them. I'm just not prepared to spend good time arguing with you since you ignore the facts. Gwernol 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the conversation below. I see my uncontested arguments, and I see where you've ignored facts. Is this your new tactic? Rather than continue to lose this argument you're just going to claim I ignored the facts. Great work, chief. Handface 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again, I must ask for reasonableness

Sometimes, it’s like I’m talking to a wall. You said, “When a user has taken actions to merit the consensus required for banning for exhausting the community's patience, they're really out of options.” However, please note that I demonstrated below that I did not meet the policy criteria for exhausting the community’s patience. I must also add that if there is never a justification for personal attacks, as you said, then the people who made attacks against me should have been blocked before I ever responded. The fact that no action was taken against them shows inconsistency. And again, I must remind you that I did return to a pattern of abuse. I made dozens – hundreds – of constructive edits. Then one user started attacking me. I didn’t seek out anyone to attack. Because you have provided no policy basis for your decision, I still stand by the conclusion that the most reasonable block is tantamount to “time already served.”

I should point out also that your response is exactly the kind of behavior that is frustrating. You stated, “I disagree with your reasons below; it doesn't matter whether you feel you were "provoked" to personal attacks; there's never a justification for them..” Please, note that this is not the argument I made. I didn’t say I was justified. What I did say is the fact that I was provoked makes everyone who claims I made “unprovoked attacks” out to be promulgating falsehoods against me. Next, you said that you disagreed with me, but then you didn’t provide any logical basis for that stance. And, of course, if there’s no justification for attacks, then the people who attacked me should be punished equally.

Now, I say again, unless there is a reasonable, articulable basis for my block, I ask that it be lifted. Handface 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will happily articulate the reason for the community ban. You have a long history of deeply incivil behavior, including repeated personal attacks, after multiple warnings and previous blocks. Every time you have returned from a block you quickly revert to the behavior of making personal attacks which have steadily grown more vicious. You lie when you are called on your behavior, show no remorse or understanding of the damage you do to other editors and Wikipedia and you continue to escalate disputes at every opportunity. You created sockpuppets to evade a legitimate block, even though you were well aware that this was unacceptable and specifically against policy. Finally you make one of the most egregious and shameful personal attacks I have ever had the misfortune to witness that clearly shows you have no interest in being a productive member of the community and will stop at nothing to insult, antagonize and hurt others for your own pleasure.

To claim that the editors involved had attacked you is blatantly untrue and a clear example of the lengths you will go to to distorte the record to your own ends. Just because I gave you an inital one week block to stop your deeply offensive behavior does not mean that can't be extended.

The community has reviewed your long record of abusive behavior and decided that you are not welcome here. You have had multiple chances to show any sign that you are willing to work within Wikipedia's rules and time and again you have spat in our faces. At some point you need to acknowledge that the problem here is not Wikipedia, its you. Gwernol 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lies? You claim I've lied? That's just another egregious personal attack. I haven't lied. That is a continuation of the smear campaign. The claim that I escalate disputes at every opportunity is demonstrably false hyperbole and, if anything, is a very example of the kind of behavior of which you accuse me. And despite all the adjectives you would like to attach to the personal attack that I made, the fact remains that every time someone lies about me they make an attack against me, which according to policy, is of equal severity. So, for instance, in your most recent response to me, by making untrue statements, you arguably have made yet another "egregious and shameful" attack, and, of course, the remedy would apparently be a permanent ban. Then you claim I have no interest in being a productive member, which again, is demonstrably false. I have made hundreds of appropriate and constructive edits. It's only when antagonized that I've made negative comments. In the last bout, I must say that I endured a smear campaign of untruths and attacks for some time before I resorted to negative comments.

Your next paragraph is little more than a string unsupported falsehoods, so I should just skip it, but I don't want to be accused of dodging the argument. So, yes, editors have attacked me by calling me a liar and a vandal, both of which are claims that are unsubstantiated. I have not at any point attempted to "distorte" the record, despite what you have claimed. In fact, everyone else has distorted the record. There has not yet been a single point of verifiable fact that I have disputed. Nowhere have I disputed any of the valid arguments made against me, nor have I at any point made bogus claims against anyone else.

You can block me if that gives you the satisfaction of "victory", but I can't allow you to claim any kind of moral victory based upon the facts, because the record just doesn't support your claims. Handface 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Quote from Handface: "Gwernol had already said in his previous posting that he was content with the one week block for that comment, so Sidaway’s response is basically moot." This would be an example of one of your lies, I'm afraid, since I never said that.

2) You don't escalate disputes? Ptkfgs expressed regret that you were not going to try to justify calling Al Franken a "mental retard" and you responded with this? And that's not escalating a dispute?

3) I have made no personal attacks on you. I have repeatedly called your actions into account. You on the other hand feel free to attack people. Your earlier description of the personal attack as only an "attack" because attack was "way too harsh of a word in this case" is yet another example of you failing to recognize the seriousness of your actions. Are you really saying that attack wasn't serious?

4) "It's only when antagonized that I've made negative comments. In the last bout, I must say that I endured a smear campaign of untruths and attacks for some time before I resorted to negative comments. " The interesting thing here is that the record is clear and on this page. The accusations against you were founded. Your reaction to them was not to argue the facts. You just resorted to deeply personal attacks.

5) You didn't try to distort the record? You don't make bogus claims? See #1 above for one example.

The record more than supports the claims and actions against you. Gwernol 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the numbering system. It makes point-by-point refutation of these continued attacks much easier.

1) You claim that you never said you were content with the one week block. However, here you said, “I am happy that the 1 week block was a reasonable response.” Moving on.

2) Next, you say, “You don't escalate disputes?” Since that’s not what was originally said, let me point to the above conversation. You said I “escalate disputes at every opportunity.” Do you really think one example is “every” opportunity? Did you think I wouldn’t notice you changing your quote? Right. Moving on.

3) Here you claim you have made no personal attacks against me. Yet the untruths that you continue to propagate about me are perfect examples of personal attacks. Then you follow up saying you don’t make personal attacks by making a personal attack with the quote, “You on the other hand feel free to attack people.” An unsubstantiated and unverifiable smear.

4) “The interesting thing here is that the record is clear and on this page.” No, it isn’t. Sorry. “The accusations against you were founded.” No, they weren’t sorry. See, you can’t actually say arguments were founded unless you support them. Anyway. “Your reaction to them was not to argue the facts.” Obviously false. I spent hours using dozens of edits to argue the facts. Then you finish this off with, “You just resorted to deeply personal attacks.” It was one attack, and I’ll ignore the adjective “deeply” as it shows your bias. I just saw a “yo mama” joke on a rerun of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. What has family programming come to?

5) Already refuted at #1.

Just chalk this one up in the loss column and move on. Handface 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be reasonable

.

I am asking you not to deny this unblock request without fulling considering the situation. I am confident that when the facts are considered objectively, there is simply no justification for an indefinite block. The time I have already served while blocked is sufficient.

Please understand that you merely gave as an explanation the “consensus” to which I am objecting. The first post on that link by Gwernol contains inaccuracies, first by saying that I made “unprovoked” personal attacks and that I made “unfounded” accusations against him. However, I was provoked. I’m not denying that I made a personal attack, but the person I “attacked” (which is way too harsh of a word in this case) repeatedly referred to me as a vandal despite the fact that I hadn’t vandalized. Then consider also that my accusations towards Gwernol were not unfounded. He may not have agreed with them, but calling them unfounded is false.

Next, Tony Sidaway says “this” is unacceptable – referring to a comment that I had already been blocked for one week for. The one week block was already considerably lengthy. I don’t think moving it up to a permanent block is the right course. Gwernol had already said in his previous posting that he was content with the one week block for that comment, so Sidaway’s response is basically moot.

Next, pschemp says that I continually engage in “unprovoked” attacks. I have never made a negative comment to someone without provocation. She has distorted the reality of this situation. She also claims that I “can’t control” myself. That right there is a personal attack containing insight into my motivations to which she can’t reasonably attain. These are egregious personal attacks as she is damaging my reputation by making these claims. Yet the “yo mama” comment that got me blocked didn’t damage anyone’s reputation. It was just a jab.

Then Jkelly chimes in saying that I am unwilling to follow the civility procedures on Wikipedia. Again, this comment speaks to my motivations and offers information which Jkelly couldn’t possibly substantiate. Then Sasquatch adds “Definete ban.” Maybe he meant “definite” and not “definete”. Maybe he meant “indefinite.” No matter what he meant, he adds nothing useful to the mix. Deathphoenix throws in a joke, so new or compelling arguments there.

ChrisO chimes in by saying I’m not a sure that we want to have around. Sadly, this is probably the strongest argument anyone makes. If I’m going to be banned by the community, then the fact that they don’t want me around would make sense. However, I seriously doubt the intent of the community ban policy is to block users that we just don’t want to have around. In fact, looking at the community ban policy, it states that there should be widespread consensus for my block and not just a handful of admins/users. Furthermore, it says that my block should be listed on a particular page. Neither of these policies were followed. As it turns out, I can find no real policy backing for my block. Interestingly, there is some support for at least temporary blocks of the users who have antagonized me.

Then the WP:AN conversation ends with Samir and Sidaway agreeing on the ban. If that’s all they have to offer, then I can really see no reason why my block should still be in place. I have sat out for more than a week, which is the appropriate remedy. I was blocked for a week, and my block should have been reset for using two sockpuppets. But now that the time has expired, the indefinite block is just excessive.

Again, realize that I have no history of vandalism. I've edited articles constructively, added sources, and created articles. The only time I have directed negative comments at people is when they have been out of line. Handface 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would advise anyone concerned with this matter to look over this user's contributions, which are plain and there for all to see, before coming to any conclusion. They speak for themselves. Badgerpatrol 12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Basically, I should be unblocked because my original block was for one week. It's been more than a week. I read the report for why I should be banned permenantly, and most people just cited the offense for which I was blocked for one week. I don't think that's really appropriate. And the correct remedy for a sockpuppet, as far as I can tell, is resetting the original block, not a permenant block. Furthermore, none of the people who made attacks against me had to suffer any serious consequences, so the idea that I should be permenantly blocked seems to be wholly disproportionate. Handface 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

unblock

Gweneral did the correct thing. Personally with your history of abuse and personal attacks, I think you should have been blocked longer. No unblock. pschemp | talk 19:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize this account violates the sockpuppet policy and will be blocked indefinitely, and that's fine. However, I have created it because I didn't want my IP address locked out for 24 hours once my block is reduced. The admin who blocked me basically admits to blocking me for personal attacks and not the other people who were making personal attacks against me. My reading of the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility is that the personal attacks I made were far less severe than the ones they made. Furthermore, the admin who blocked me has basically antagonized me into creating a sockpuppet by engaging me in conversation on other pages after I was blocked. I don't really know how else I'm supposed to responsd. Hytorium 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I admitted no such thing. You made an vicious, obscene and <personal attack removed> on another user and are now using multiple sockpuppets to circumvent your block. The personal attack you made was one of the most egregious and nasty ones I've seen on Wikipedia. If you truly believe I have antagonized you into creating a sockpuppet, please show some evidence rather <personal attack removed>. I did not engage you on other pages after you had been blocked: you created a sockpuppet and left a message on my talk page. What you can do is leave an unblock message on this page (since you are not blocked from editing it) as User:Handface rather than creating sockpuppets. Gwernol 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great

I returned from my block for "inapproriate" (sic) behavior to find that the admin that blocked me just threw some sort of online PMS fit. Nice work, Wikipedians. Handface 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have returned from yet another unjustified block for my continued "offensise" (sic) behavior. Handface 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notified user - page blanking

Please do not blank articles. If you believe that an article doesn't belong to Wikipedia, please nominate it for deletion. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 10:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning

Please do not use uncivil or inappropriate edit summaries. This is considered vandalism.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hurricane Floyd

You didn't grok what I said about documentation, on Hurricane Floyd, did you? — Rickyrab | Talk 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

RE this: [1]. There is a policy here against personal attacks and the community values civility. Please don't leave edit summaries like that again. Badgerpatrol 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also best not to remove warnings left by other users on your talk page. Badgerpatrol 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Badgerpatrol 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blah, blah, blah

Please follow Wiki's rules for reverting items and remember to assume good will. The item that was added to the Coulter page was in line with other items already there...though it was in the wrong place. I have not put it back in as this page just looks to be a fight waiting to happen but please follow Wiki rules ... ie. don't erase something without proper notes etc... KsprayDad 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barney & Friends

That was the anon who added that, not me. —Khoikhoi 04:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Adios. —Khoikhoi 04:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 24 hours

I have blocked you for 24 hours for vandalizing the global warming article. Raul654 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize it. I even had sources for the added information. Not only is your block unwarranted, but you have blatantly violated the 3RR policy on the global warming article. It's you who is the one that should be blocked. Handface 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(A) The claim that you cited everything is flatly untrue. You wrote: "Furthermore, politians such as Al Gore try to peddle global warming nonsense on the general public" <-- where is the citation? You provided none. (B) A film critic for the New York Post is not an authority on global warming and is certianly not qualified to judge whether or not Gore's film is factually accurate or not (Just look at the revealing comment tucked away at the bottom: Correction: an earlier version of this review incorrectly linked lead and smog to global warming.); and (C) assuming, for the sake of argument, he was, you still mischaracterized him! Badly! The reviewer at least had the good sense to take issue with specific parts of the movie, whereas you summarized the review that the movie has "little basis in fact", which is absurdly wrong. That edit was so far beyond the realm of acceptable edits that it's vandalism, which is why you have been blocked. Raul654 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And about the three revert rule (which I helped write) - vandalism-reverting is clearly exempt. In fact, it specifically says "In general, blocking is the preferred solution to repeat vandalism originating from a single user or IP." Raul654 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not assuming good faith. I read the article the day the movie came out, so I was unaware of the correction. I read the article in its original form which thoroughly bashed the movie. Furthermore, my statements about Michael Chrichton were very accurate. I also put this in the alternative theories section since this is the minority view. But something being a minority view doesn't make it an incorrect view or vandalism. If you disagree with me, you can reword my blurb to your liking, but to call it vandalism is petty. Handface 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The links backing up my comments: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Handface 19:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 48 hours

You were reverted because there was no discussion on the talk page or anywhere else at the time. Please refrain from profanity or you will be blocked for incivility. Actually now that I've read your edit summaries, you have made personal attacks and been uncivil in edit summaries and other places at least three time since being unblocked and you are now blocked for 48 hours. pschemp | talk 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Diffs - [6], [7], and [8], [9]. pschemp | talk 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My first block was completely unjustified. Wikipedia has been running articles on the main page recently with blatant left-wing biases. And how the hell was I supposed to know that I would be blocked for being "uncivil"? I haven't done anything that administrators don't do (with the exception of randomly blocking people, of course). Handface 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminstrators do not use profanity in their edit summaries. Are you denying you did that? pschemp | talk 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I used profanity in my edit summaries, but I didn't know anything was wrong with that. A warning would have worked. It's the same thing that administrators do. Being blocked for 48 hours is just gay. Handface 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned before, the evidence is on your talkpage. And that's a lovely incivil attack on homosexuals there. You'll want to refrain from those kind of remarks too. pschemp | talk 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at this admin's edit history. [10] It's filthy. Handface 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean its right. If you are so offended, go report him when your block expires. pschemp | talk 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Two problems. First, I checked the archive, and it's already been reported (no action was taken). Secondly, you're showing blatant bias by blocking me but making someone else go take action to block him. The hypocrasy of this place has absolutely no limits. Handface 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, leave. Judging by the other comments on this page and my own experience of your behaviour, you won't be missed. If on the other hand you want to be constructive, are prepared to be civil, and will refrain from the kind of pathetic personal attacks that seem to be your trademark, then of course stay. The decision is entirely up to you. Badgerpatrol 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "love it or leave it" speech, chief. I can contribute to Wikipedia without being your friend. Handface 17:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, please do not edit my user page, as this is considered vandalism. Handface 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging articles for speedy deletion

Hi there. I see you tagged the article Madden Elite for speedy deletion with the reason "inappropriate". Unfortunately "inappropriate" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD for the full list). I've removed your CSD tag and replaced it with a Prod notice instead. Thanks, Gwernol 02:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get a Sense of Humor

My edit wasn't hurting anyone. It didn't have obcenities. It was funny. It was true. Pretty much, it was harmless. You shouldn't deleted it.--an annoyed smarta** -- (an anonymous, unsigned message left by 65.78.5.205, the IP address of a little titty baby)

Here is a sense of humor for you. Dear 65.78.5.205, Fuck you. Handface 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Handface, this comment is inappropriate. No matter the provocation, please do not resort to obscenity and uncivil comments. Gwernol 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you have gone right back into your pattern of uncivil comments and profanity. You are now blocked for one week due to the repetition of inapproriate behavior. Just in case you are wondering which edits I am referring too, that would be the one directly above me, this edit summary, this edit and this edit summary. pschemp | talk 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brokeback Mountain

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ardenn 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my edits are being undone repeatedly. Handface 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Ardenn 04:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please remember to stay cool and remain civil and not make accusations of trolling.[11] The circumstances indicate this was not the case. Tyrenius 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Don't blank sections of WP:AN. If you think that the conversation is inappropriate, explain why. Also, don't abuse the edit summary function. Jkelly 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits such as this:

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --InShaneee 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh

Please stop making this edit to this article. The data is clearly intended to push the idea that homosexual sex was involved when there is no credible data to suggest sex of any kind was involved—"missing" pill or no. Please read WP:NPOV. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The addition does imply sex, with men or with anyone else, and is POV-pushing. Please stop. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please talk about the Limbaugh addition on the article's talk page. We had this edit in there a week or so ago and we collectively agreed to remove it as pointless and unnecessary detail. We had a quote from Limbaugh himself describing it as a "guy's weekend", and we elected to remove it. If you want it back in, talk on the talk page and stop stubbornly reverting the same edit a half dozen times. Bjsiders 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There were no "boys" on the trip anyway. They were all adults. You are in violation of WP:3RR. I was going to report you to the admins, but someone else beat me to it. Crockspot 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Gwernol 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:CSD:A7. Articles can only be speedied if they fail to assert notability. If the article claims notability (for example being in a notable band) then it cannot be speedied under A7. Even if the subject is not notable, if the article claims notability it cannot be speedied. Use Prod or AfD instead. Gwernol 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read it. That I may have applied it in a manner that you object to doesn't mean I didn't read it. Thanks for the advice though, chief. Handface 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of how you apply it, it's a question of what the policy actually says. A7 only applies to articles that do not assert notability. Since the article did assert notability, it doesn't fall under the definition of A7. And in what way was my comment a personal attack? You calling me a "jerk" is a personal attack. My describing what a policy actually says is not a personal attack. Gwernol 23:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but claiming I didn't read it when I did is a personal attack. Not only is it a personal attack, it's false. While calling you a "jerk" is a personal attack also, it's not necessarily false. I consider making false statements about people to be much worse than personal attacks. Handface 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my assumption was you couldn't have read it since you were misunderstanding what it said. I will be very careful not to make the same mistake in the future. Gwernol 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.C. Clark

The above page has been deleted, as requested.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hi, I am sorry I meant (and then was distracted and forgot) to leave you a message. I thought that this was not a clear-cut case of vandalism and WP:RFC/NAME would be more appropriate page. You may have noticed that WP:AIV is more like "Urgent! We are under attack right now" page. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ptkfgs 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings arbitrarily from your user talk page. This is considered vandalism. --Ptkfgs 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite being composed of well-formed sentences and attributing the claims to Ann Coulter, the section you have repeatedly added to Bill Clinton asserting that he is gay is vandalism. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ptkfgs 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is dangerous in the hands of people like you who would so blatantly distort the facts. First, "attrubuting the claims to Ann Coulter..." while a true statement, carries the subtle implication that she may not have actually said that. And "he is gay..." is a complete understatement of what was actually written and most likely a rhetorical ploy. Michael Moore would be very proud of you. Handface 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia. This is not helping your situation. --Ptkfgs 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You should worry more about your situation. Deleteing content from articles, such as what you are doing to the Bill Clinton article, and then using factual distortions to attack Wikipedia editors is not appropriate behavior. Handface 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kindly stick to discussing the facts and not the behaviour of motivation of editors. The latter amounts to personal attack and can lead to being blocked. Please study CIVIL. Thank you. Tyrenius 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not going to "study" WP:CIVIL. When did I not discuss the facts? "Deleting content from articles..." Fact. That ptkfgs was doing it to the Bill Clinton article? Fact. He used factual distortions? Also fact. However, you will note that he has discussed my motivations with words like "arbitrarily". I'll stick to the facts, even if no one else wants to. Handface 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're undermining your own position by getting into trouble needlessly. You can make your point in a civil way, and then you stand more chance of it being accepted, instead of getting blocked. It's your choice, but why shoot yourself in the foot? You might like to look at this.[12] Tyrenius 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now even more edits -- would you please join us at Talk:Bill Clinton to justify why Coulter's depiction of Clinton is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion? Or at least link us to wherever-it-is you have stated that you are holding this discussion? It's hard to take an edit dispute seriously if you do not engage the topic in discussion. --Ptkfgs 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The only edit has been by Micworstensesteinsauce who's now been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. The only discussion I'm aware of is the one on AN/I, where Handface has said he is not going to reinstate the edit. However, I think any editor working on the article should seriously consider whether it should be reinstated anyway, in whole in or part, whether in its own section or integrated into other text. Tyrenius 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Coulter reference obviously wasn't vandalism, though given its nature it's hard to describe it as a serious or significant view, or even a reasonable one.

However what concerns me a little is Handface's removal of a reference to Coulter's statements from the Ann Coulter article [13]. The edit summary: "removing poorly written MediaMatters hit piece". I just don't see how when it's added to Bill Clinton Handface says he did so "because Ann Coulter said it, and Coulter and Clinton have a long and documented history", and at the same time it's removed from the Coulter article for being a "hit piece".

Another matter for concern here is this edit in which the name "Al Franken" is wikilinked to the article mental retard. This seems unnecessarily inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, to address your concern, I have no problem with the mention of the "homosexuality" stuff in Ann Coulter's article. It was just so poorly written and obviously POV that it was beyond repair. Without looking back, I believe the name of that section was "Unsubstantiated" claims, and all the links were to MediaMatters, a left-wing watch group. Handface 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is to disrupt -- these edits aren't even pushing a POV. It's just about getting some offtopic text into an article to disrupt it. I can't believe my eyes w/r/t we actually have all these "edit disputes" going. This one's a no-brainer, it's a sneaky v — brilliantly executed — but just a sneaky v. --Ptkfgs 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll save everyone some time and just not respond to this. Handface 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

)-: I was particularly looking forward to the tale of how [[Mental retard|Al Franken]] got in there. --Ptkfgs 11:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What a coincidence, <gross personal attack removed> Handface 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For that completely inappropriate and offensive personal attack, you are blocked for one week. Gwernol 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban

After a discussion, you have been blocked indefinitely, banned because you have exhausted the community's patience. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)