User talk:ColScott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, ColScott, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NatusRoma | Talk 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. .--Dakota ~ 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages. If you continue to remove them, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RexNL 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Your message

Answered at my talk page. Chick Bowen 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored

I have restored the article and added two of the links (the blog entry would not be considered a reliable source). In the meantime, however, I have blocked you for 12 hours for your considerable incivility. Please see the links in the welcome message above for more information about contributing, and please do try to be nicer about things. If you'd just asked me I would obviously have undeleted the article. Chick Bowen 06:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be the bigger man and let you off early. But please do read our civility policy and follow it. Chick Bowen 07:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I hope you feel better in blocking me Mr Politeness Policeman. Of course I would not expect an apology since you were WRONG and ARROGANT. No you instead blame those smarter than you. How nice does one have to be to someone who ruins things for the rest?? Oh I know, NOT AT ALL. ColScott

Still laughing at your abominably arrogant message. I shouldn't have to ask you to undelete a message YOU should be DAMN sure you know what you are talking about BEFORE you Delete it. In fact in this case it is insane- I did ask you but you wanted your "reliable sources" as if Wikipedia is reliable in any case. Shame on you. Col Scott

See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --nkayesmith 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Smith- I am not sure what you are telling me here? Arrogant guy DELETED a post. He cited potential libel risk due to accuracy and then cited notability factor. If he spent 12 seconds googling about an article that had been up a month that he deleted out a clear blue sky then he would have had his own answers. Before an extreme action like DELETION is taken he had an obligation to do some damn research. He had to be knowledgable. I wouldn't edit something I know nothing about nor should this guy DELETE something. It is an UNCIVIL thing to do and should be responded to in the strongest possible fashion. He didn't put it up to the group- he just did it. That is NOT OKAY. Otherwise I don't follow your point.-- ColScott 07:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that it is Wikipedia policy to assume that Chick Bowen made an honest mistake. This is usually the case, as Wikipedia admins are granted power based on community consensus, with all their contributions made available to the public. It is always within your right to request recreation, which I believe you did - problem solved! I haven't looked at all aspects of this particular case - I cannot, as I am not an admin yet - but in any case regrettable mistakes do occur, especially since admins have to delete dozens of articles a day (I'm assuming this was a case of speedy deletion?, correct me if I'm wrong), and you have not accused Chick Bowen of anything outside correct actions - aside from, of course, accidentally deleting an article. You have accused him of asking for reliable sources, saying that Wikipedia itself is not reliable - but asking for reliable sources is one way to make Wikipedia reliable. While I can understand where you are coming from though, having felt a little similarly after having one of my articles deleted, I urge you to not take deletion as anything personal. --nkayesmith 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Sign your posts

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.--nkayesmith 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your external links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Philip Gronowski Contribs 01:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored deleted warning at 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Philip Gronowski Contribs

Request for Unblock

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "aggressive admin didn't bother to read the link- links were not spam and were only left in appropriate articles involving the case"

Decline reason: "It does not matter how relevant it is, you should not be posting you blog on over a dozen articles. You were warned to stop[1], then you kept doing it, then you were blocked for it[2]. -- HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Be glad it is only a 24 hour block, I suggest you go to the talk page of the articles and discuss the inclusion of these links and follow consensus before you try to re-add them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I was warned by a sixteen year old Canadian who probably doesn't know what the case is. So you are saying that I should open an account under a diff name and then the posts would be valid? Do you admins get together and decide the best ways to make sure Wikipedia stays a national joke? I mean the first Admin is ESL and now you tell me that I didn't heed a child's warning. I don't know if I can stop laughing
Be Glad? Hooray, a loser banned me incorrectly for only 24 hours. Stephen Colbert are you listening? ColScottColScottColScott

This is all based on our WP:SPAM policy. The age of the person warning you is not relevant, at that age the user was able to read and understand and enforce our policy, excellent. Another policy you need to read it WP:NPA which forbids personal attacks. I an reseting your block to 48 hours for calling the banning admin a 'Loser'. Please comment on the contributions, not the contributor.

Further incivility will result in a longer block. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From E-Mail

To User:HighInBC

What was the personal attack? Calling someone Canadian? I mean I'm sorry, I don't believe there is a cure for that. I didn't say anything about you because I hadn't seen your picture yet.

You do realize that what ever power you think you have is spurious, right?

Now apologize, revert the ban and I will follow your instructions to post the link under another account.

Jumping Catfish!

Well, it seems you wish to continue being uncivil. Canadian is not an illness that needs to be cured, I already told you above that the incivility in question was calling the blocking admin a 'loser'. I also told you continued incivility will result in a longer block.

So I am reseting the block for a week. If you continue to be uncivil I will make a post at WP:AN/I requesting the advice of my peers. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Yawn . ColScottColScott 19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are now changing IP's and attacking talk pages, and resuming spamming, I have blocked you indefinitely. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me? That is outrageous. I have done nothing except celebrate the new year. Nice try. Unless you can PROVE your assertions, BIG MAN, I demand you stand down and apologize. I state categorically that I have done nothing of the kind. ColScottColScott 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


REQUEST FOR UNBLOCK AND REVIEW OF ABUSIVE ADMINISTRATOR

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "see below"

Decline reason: "There is a no-tollerance policy for attacking editors on wikipedia. Admitting to posting on your blog about this would constitute attacking someone. If you continue to make personal attacks against long-time editors and admins of Wikipedia your talk page will be protected. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

yesterday, an admin who goes by the name HighInBC and seems to admit to being stoned most of the time got his jollies off by banning me, first for a day then for two then for a week because I disagreed with his evaluation of links that I was adding. The links had been questioned by a 16 year old Canadian boy and then this Canadian admin showed up abusing his power. Fine. I posted about his abuse on my blog. Perhaps my many readers then chose to take offense to his behavior. I don't know either way. But now this abusive admin has decided that I myself have been spamming and abusive when I have not. If he knew enough to search IPS he would ascertain that none of them came even from the same city I am in. In either case, this is insanely unconscionable. This Canadian stoner has acted as judge, jury and executioner. More than once. Not only must I be unblocked but I demand an investigation into HIGHINBC. ColScottColScott 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


so you are saying that if I post about an event using my free speech rights this constitutes attacks? I just ask that you be clear in what you state. And there is no need for your threats. ColScottColScott 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, your violation of this policy constitutes attacks. Please read the policy and understand that his "threat" has perfect basis in Wikipedia policies. Have a nice day, Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: Wikipedia is not about total free speech. You must abide by our policies and guidelines. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Note to Phil Junior- just posting a link clarifies nothing I am sorry to say. The Admin claims he created an indefinite ban because I changed Ip numbers and spammed pages. I did neither. He cannot prove that I did. When I asked your fellow Canadian RoyalGuard to reverse the ban, rather than addressing the point like he was obligated to do, he instead stated that mentioning HighinBc in my blog constituted an attack. So- Phil Junior, I ask what the heck you are talkiing about since your inexperience started all this. And RoyalGuard- I never said that Free Speech applies to Wiki. I asked if my use of free speech outside Wiki has some affect within. This question you refuse to answer here or via email. ColScottColScott 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My inexperience in what? I removed your links per Wikipedia:External links. I am certainly not inexperienced there and I don't quite know what you are talking about. Anyway, have a super day! Cheers, Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Phil Junior, your inexperience in life of course. That said, the links were completely acceptable. Go to the Manson page. Look up the link for the Manson Music Blog. why is that okay and the Official Tate LaBianca Blog is not? The only reason is that you did not know what you were doing at the time. God, and your country and province forgives you. ColScottColScott 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Phil- is it possible that you are upset because the Official Blog is unhappy with you?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColScott (talk • contribs).

Quite frankly I don't care what your blog thinks. I removed the link. Have a super New Year! Cheers, Philip Gronowski Contribs 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't care what I think but you removed the link and cried to Blogger. Makes sense. ColScottColScott 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil Junior- only a small boy would think Blogger would censor free speech for mentioning you are a small boy. I will pray for you and your soul every night in 07. ColScottColScott 22:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "E-mailed to HighInBC(me): I state categorically that I have been unable to post on the board since you used your authority yesterday. I have neither spammed nor done any posting whatsoever. Therefore I urge you to reinstate the one week ban. You cannot prove that I have done this and looking at your history page it is clear that the IP #s come from different cities, none from mine. Thus it appears you have increased the ban unjustifiably."

Decline reason: "If I might correct you, on that count. A pair of non-portable IPs registered to Colorado were involved; all of the 172.* addresses are dynamic AOL addresses. The question begs itself: if it wasn't you, or someone acting on your behalf, then who could it have been? In any case, I see your talk page is currently protected; if you're going to pursue this any further, you'll have to do so through the unblock-en-l mailing list. Luna Santin 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

After I blocked the user I got these: [3] [4] [5] [6] (and many more) which resemble very closely edits made by this user: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (also many more)

The user says in e-mail that is was not him, so I am presenting this evidence and leaving it to another admin to decide. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Any admin reviewing the unblock should check http://www.tatelabianca.blogspot.com/ as well to see this users colorful opinion of me and Wikipedia. Already removed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is NOTHING to decide. YOU state that you imposed an indefinite ban on me because I was spamming you and the board. I was doing nothing of the kind. I am still blocked from Wikipedia. I could NOT do this. ColScottColScott 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough I was contacted by Blogger about your blog. Seems they frown upon slander. Cheerfully yours, Philip Gronowski Contribs 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Phil Junior- why lie? YOU contacted them to get your jollies like you said on the admin page. I am not sure why you think I cannot see that. And Slander is SPOKEN. Libel is written. But I am sure you will learn that when you grow up. I would never libel you anyway. ColScottColScott 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Natalya- The abusive admin (IMO) stated reasons why I have been banned. They are UNTRUE. Provably untrue- just do "whois" and see. Therefore either the reason needs to be changed (and hence the time ban become unreasonable) or something. Why is it you guys scream that there are rules only when it suits you? ColScott 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)ColScott

Your block has been changed from indefinite to one month, as we are going to assume good faith on our parts. However, if your incivility, personal attacks, and spamming continue, the indeftine block will be placed back on. There is no need for anyone to be rude to each other. -- Natalya 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This page is protected because of repeated personal attacks by this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block reinstated

Due to continued harassment of User:HighInBC and blanking of his talk page from IPs that are clearly related, your indefinite block has been reinstated. We hoped that you would be able to reconsider your ways and assumed good faith in shortening your indefinite block, but this is clearly not the case. Related difs: [12] and the contribts of 72.89.210.235. -- Natalya 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/User_talk%7EColScott_1076.html"