User talk:HK30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They know not what they do.

Someone help me. I didn't know I did anything wrong. I am very new. I tried to be bold. To be open. Before I knew it I was blocked for a whole month. I've been serving my time. Can someone just let me go back to editing? HK30 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry no, to quote you from below "This looks like a very unfair conspiracy here. Is Wikipedia really this undemocratic? I'm going to tell the world about this and go to the press with this injustice. You won't hear the last from me. I'll create websites and never drop this injustice.", sounds slightly more than being bold to me. Also see what wikipedia is not, wikipedia is not a democracy, if you believe it is you are going to be disappointed. --pgk(talk) 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, HK30! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages using four tildes, like this ~~~~. When you save the page, the tildes will expand into your name and the date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, please see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! AnnH ♫ 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you are the anon 206.61.48.22 who reverted and contributed on the Christianity talk page with your arguments just before you began to edit that article, you have already broken the three revert rule which says that no editor may revert in whole or in part above three times in any 24-hour period. If you are not, you are still in danger of breaking it. We generally don't report new editors, but could you please stop now? And could you please clarify if you were that editor, as we can have it checked by an admin with checkuser status. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. I just didn't register an account yet, but I thought I should so I could have a name like everyone else. I didn't knwo about the 3RR rule yet. Sorry, I am new. But now that I know about it, I will follow the rules. I hope I won't get banned now. I'll convert if it will save me, but Tom below said that is not necessary. HK30 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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 an article to a previous version 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. Jkelly 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already been told about the three-revert rule. Is there some reason why I should not seek that it be enforced in your case? Tom Harrison Talk 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read my talk page until now!! So only know am I aware of this rule. Don't ban me please! I'll convert. HK30 19:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to convert, just don't revert anymore for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm not good at faking it anyway. HK30 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You didn't read your talk page until now? I sent you that message at 18:40 (UTC), and you made your fifth revert to the Christianity article at 18:43. When you pressed "save", to revert that article, (or perhaps even earlier, when you pressed "edit this page",) a big orange bar would have flashed across the screen, telling you you had new messages, and giving you a link to click on. If you ignored it, and just went on to another page, the orange bar would have flashed again when you opened the other page, and again, and again, and again, until you finally went to your talk page to read the message(s). It's impossible to ignore. It would distract you while you were trying to edit something else. You posted to the Christianity talk page at 18:53, and that orange bar would have appeared again. You made your sixth revert to the article at 19:01, and your seventh at 19:20. You posted to the Christianity talk page at 19:22, and then you say you only then read your messages? Knowing from experience what that orange bar is like, I find it rather unlikely that someone would open up ten new pages, have that bar flashing up at him every single time, and simply ignore it. AnnH ♫ 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You can find it hard to believe but its the truth. I read somewhere that you are supposed to assume good faith? There is nothing that required me to read the message first before I finished doing what I was doing, or wanted to do. I get e-mail new message alerts all the time but don't jump to get my email right away. I eventually get to it, as I did this message. Its normal for me. If I told you that you were able to convert me to Christianity, would you then be more likely to believe what I say is the truth? HK30 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another 3RR violation

HK03, you have just done a partial revert at Christianity, by reinserting "a character", which was part of what yesterday's edit war was about.[1] It was clear from the talk page that "character" was part of the dispute. Storm Rider objected to the word, and I agreed with him. That makes your ninth revert, in less than 25 hours, your sixth in 24 hours. And my first message to you yesterday said that "no editor may revert in whole or in part above three times in any 24-hour period."[2] You have now been warned by three administrators about your edit warring and 3RR violations. Please note that if you keep reverting you may be blocked for disruption or for gaming the system, even if you manage technically to space a fourth revert just outside a 24-hour period. You broke the rule yesterday, and you weren't reported. You broke it again as soon as you came back today. I'm offering you a chance to revert yourself to avoid a block. AnnH ♫ 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Opps, didn't think about this detail. I obeyed your request and have reverted myself. Would it help if I convert, too? If I convert can I be an administrator, too? HK30 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Becoming a Christian is a serious matter, and besides, it appears obvious at least to me that you don't take us very seriously. If you would like to insert comments which affirm the POV you seem to be advocating, namely that Christianity is somehow on par with reader rabbit, im afraid you'll have to do it in serious debate, rather than edit warring. Homestarmy 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Will you help me to convert? Will I get to be an admin, too? It seems all the Admins are Christians so maybe the is the path...HK30 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Why was I blocked? For how long? It seems I've another victim of the Christian Cabal. HK30 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not a Christian Cabal - I am an athiest but I do not consider it good form to stalk someone and publish personal data in wikipedia that they have not linked themselves. If you insist on putting the link back your talk page will be locked as well. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So you are an admin, then, also? I guess I was wrong about my idea that you had to be a Christian to be one. When will I be able to edit, again? I wish you would have at least warned me and advised me of your status. I thought you were just trying to hide criticisms. HK30 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not an admin. I logged your actions on WP:AN/I and several admins I have never encountered before stepped to revert your edits and block you from making further ones. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 21:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked as a socket puppet of myself?!

When I try to edit I get this message: "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Johntex for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Blocked as sock-puppert of User:HK30"

Who is Jontex and how can I be a socket-puppert of myself? This doesnt make sense to me. I thought Sophia blocked me for restoring her hiding of the Christain Cabal website from other users talk pages. What does this have to do with a socket puppet? Who is Johntex?! No one is explaining anything to me and I can't even ask in any other boards because I'm blocked. This looks like a very unfair conspiracy here. Is Wikipedia really this undemocratic? I'm going to tell the world about this and go to the press with this injustice. You won't hear the last from me. I'll create websites and never drop this injustice. I was not even warned, was not even told, and the excuse given to bann me does not even make sense. I can only concluse that its because of my seeking the truth and openness that I'm prevented from contributing. HK30 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Sophia is an admin....? and that block does make no sense at all, you should probably appeal that, there's like some ban appeal thing somewhere but im not sure where, a search should turn it up. Homestarmy 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
But even if I find the place to appeal, I can't even leave a message--except here on my talk page. Can you please help me? I'll be in your debt. HK30 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you do have a point about that, lemme see if I can find how long you were blocked for....here's the template to find your block log, HK30 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Homestarmy 21:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Eww, it seems you got indef banned by one admin and blocked for a month by another, the one month one might over-ride the other, but im afraid you'll have to probably e-mail those admins to ask to be unblocked or something. It also appears John's actual message was something about spreading personal information, which technically speaking is a rather serious matter, (Being that, you know, this is the internet) he might just to used the wrong thing to describe why you were banned. Homestarmy 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But I was not spreading any personal info. I don't even know anyone here, yet. I was only undoing another editors reverts of someone else. I did not know or understand the reasons for the undoing of this other editors links, so I undid them until I could see an explanation. I felt it was hiding and not alloweding a respons. The information appeared to be public information, too. The worse I did was simply revert what another editor did---I did not spread it to any new users (except let the users who it is about know about it). What I did was very different than the user who did post the link, but it seems they want to make me out to be that person. I also know I was not the only user who reverted in the same manner--yet nothing is happening to them. At least I should have been given a warning and I would have stopped, or an explanation. HK30 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
To revert my edits you would have had to check my contributions and then edit previous versions of the user talk page to undo my edit. In 36 hours on wikipedia you learnt an awful lot. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You think that is an an awful lot to learn in over 36 hours? haha!! Hardly. There is a button on the left that clearly says "User Contributions." I just click it and it shows everything. Editing is here here. I know I can look up an earlier version--its self evident (its even time stamped to make it obvious). Ofcourse, if i open that and save it, I can revert. I seen others do it. Im no dummy, but this is not brain surjury either. Im a software engineer by profession. This is baby stuff. So, now I'm being punished for learning how to use this system before I am supposed to? Maybe that was in the fine print somewhere in the rules section. HK30 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In my experience as a system manager (in the "real" world), new users who claim they are unsure of rules (such as 3RR) do not confidently revert edits by an established editor who left an edit summary with an explanation. As I have said several times now - e-mail the blocking admins and explain all this to them - they blocked you and only an admin can unblock you. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:AN/I#Personal information posted on user's talk page but not by them for a full explanation. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont think it will do any good. They can read the truth here and unblock me if they think they are wrong. They are wrong but they wont admit that. The've already convicted me and sentenced me, without even a trial. HK30 22:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophia is mistaken about me!=

She wrote: "As the one who flagged all this I think the bans are good. The users concerned made virtually no edits to article pages and seemed primarily concerned with details of other editors lives - not healthy in my opinion. As for the cabal stuff - I've seen them at each other's throats when there is some doctrinal issue at stake but they all have a huge common interest so they are bound to club together. Having said that changes have been made to the Christianity and Jesus pages to balance POV without overblowing the numbers of the minority position so I think with enough determination and references you can get there. As for the personal stuff I suspect HK30 put a lot of effort into google searches to come up with that website - however I consider he crossed a line by linking it everywhere he could think of on Good Friday when they would all be very busy elsewhere. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 06:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)"


Not true. Since I started, I have been making edits to many articles and using the talk pages to gain consensus. When I was told about the 3RR rule, I followed it. About this website, I did not originate it. Someone else posted to my talk page!! SimplePilgrim did that. I was very interested in the site because it seems very true, based on my limited experience and everything I saw and read for myself. But, I never believe anything until I give the other side a chance to comment. I saw they did not get the website as I did, and others, so I gave it to them so they could respond. Before they could, Sophia, removed it, and I found out she was removing it from everyone. She followed around SimplePilgrim to hide the website that he was putting up. Well, all I did was do the same thing she did--except I restored what she was hiding. That was it. What Sophia is saying above is not true: I did not link it everywhere I could think of, I only wanted to give it to Str1977 and KH03, to alert them and give them a chance to respond---since someone ELSE was sending it to eveyrone, including myself. I am an innocent victim and now lies are being told about me! HK30 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
E-mail would have been a more discrete way to notify these users. Contest the ban if you wish but I think your actions will make it hard to believe you are a new user - you certainly pick things up quickly if you are. Read WP:AN/I for the full details and as Homestarmy said - e-mail the blocking admins to tell them why they did the wrong thing in stopping you spreading personal information. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have their e-mail addresses! The link was being put up everywhere! There is no point in being discrete at that stage. Its crazy. At least they shoudl know about it, given that its already major public news here. That is the only user I posted the link to--the ones it was talking about for them to see what was going on. For trying to do the right thing now Im banned without any warning or explanation? That is wrong. And, Yes, im new. I did not even know about the 3RR rule. Im learning new things every day but doesnt seem hard to me.HK30 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So you can click on "user contibutions" but can't manage "e-mail this user" which is the line below???? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see it. I did not explore all the links, yet. HK30 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full explanation of block, right to appeal

Hello, User:SimplePilgrim has just e-mailed me requesting I shortern or remove his block. I have now reviewed the circumstances of the actions taken by you and Simple Pilgrim that led to your blocking last week. I continue to believe that the blocks were completely justified. My block expires one month from the block date, at which point you will be free to edit again.
I have posted a longer explanation at WP:AN/I#Personal information posted on user's talk page but not by them. This allows other admins the opportunity to review my block and my decision that it should stay. I can be overturned if other admins think I have acted incorrectly.
My post at WP:ANI may or may not result in someone reviewing your case. If it does not, you may also post {{unblock}} on your page and another admin will come by to specifically review your situation. I caution you that you should not remove any portion of my post while this matter is being considered. Thanks, Johntex\talk 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/k/3/User_talk%7EHK30_07c1.html"