User talk:Plautus satire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT WASTE MY TIME

Other than that, feel free to use this page.

Work In Progress

1

Hydrogen cloud around Comet LINEAR as observed by the SWAN instrument, almost a month before the comet disintegrated. The field of view is 21 million kilometres wide.

Hydrogen cloud observed, assumed origin is water. Water not observed.

In a paper appearing in the 19 May issue of Science magazine, Mäkinen et al. claim to have measured the total amount of water ice present in a comet. As Comet LINEAR was on what may have been its maiden voyage through the inner parts of our solar system, the nucleus was blown to pieces and all of its water ice evaporated due to the heat from the Sun.

Water ice is assumed, not observed. Hydrogen is observed. Hypothetical water is "claimed", not observed.

As water evaporates from a comet, it is split into its components of oxygen and hydrogen by radiation from the Sun. The hydrogen atoms "glow" in yet more radiation originating from our star, and this glow can be observed by the SWAN instrument on board SOHO.

Again, hydrogen is observed. And for some reason evaporation is confused with electrolysis. Electrolysis is needed to crack hydrogen out of water, not evaporation. If evaporation did the trick, it would be a lot easier to produce hydrogen than the laws of physics currently allow. If water is being split into hydrogen and oxygen, where is the water observed? Where is the oxygen?

2

[2]

In 1950, astronomer Fred Whipple suggested that the composition of a comet resembled that of a dirty snowball, a roughly even mix of dirt and ice. Now, after analyzing the LINEAR data, it seems that this particular comet was more of an icy dirtball than a dirty snowball. LINEAR appears to have been made up of much more meteoric debris or than ice.

Comet LINEAR described as "icy dirtball" based on 2000 data.

Even so, there was still quite a bit of icy material in LINEAR's makeup. As the comet broke apart, astronomers were able to measure the amount of water vapor it released. Based on their findings, it is believed that LINEAR, with a nucleus between 750-1,000 meters (2,500 to 3,300 feet) in diameter, carried about 3.3 billion kilograms (3.6 million tons) of water.

Water not observed, hydrogen observed as noted above. Total mass of comet was estimated to be 300 billion kilograms, assuming all hydrogen came from water, it accounted for approximately 1% of total mass. Also no volatiles observed to explain the breakup.

One thing that scientists were not able to find on LINEAR was the large quantities of volatiles that have been found on most other comets. Volatiles are those elements which go from solid to gas very quickly when heated.

Virtually no volatiles. Dovetails with virtually no water to prove this comet is a rock, much like an asteroid.

LINEAR was as close to the Sun as its orbit permitted (110 million kilometers or 71 million miles) when it disintegrated, meaning the comet was experiencing the hottest temperatures it had in 60,000 years - the amount of time it took to complete one orbit.

Virtually no volatiles, virtually no water, and at approximately the same distance from the sun as Venus. Was this rock melted by sunlight at that distance?

So, even though astronomers on Earth were watching closely, much of the original comet seems to have disappeared right before their eyes. That doesn't really matter, though. LINEAR still gave astronomers a unique view into the life and death of a comet.

This is an alarming signal that something is wrong, yet it goes unheeded. This "missing matter" from the comet is just deemed unimportant and therefore there is no reason to explain it or account for it. "That doesn't really matter, though."

3

[3]

Dr. Mark Kidger from the Spanish Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, who first observed the break-up, has concluded that this small comet probably ran out of ice altogether, leaving behind a loose conglomerate of particles that are now gradually dispersing into space. This model fits the observations well, as measurements have shown that the activity of the comet had been declining for several weeks as ice gradually sublimed away. When all the ice was exhausted and nothing was holding together the solids, the nucleus began to fall apart.

If subliming ices are responsible for the brightness, why were the dry fragments so very bright? This is a good example of cognitive dissonance. The flares from the dry fragments of the nucleus are ignored. It is known that there was virtually no water or volatiles in the comet, yet no other explanation is offered for why the pieces still flared.

4

[4]

Like comet Hyakutake, comet LINEAR is a "dirty snowball" from the outer reaches of the solar system. Its nucleus is laced with volatile gasses that vaporize furiously as the comet falls toward the Sun. Marsden explains that this is probably LINEAR's first visit to the inner solar system, and it has a greater proportion of vaporizable material than comets that have passed by the Sun many times before (e.g., Halley's Comet).

NASA prediction that LINEAR was a "dirty snowball" later contradicted by evidence showing it was, at bets, an "icy dirtball", as noted above.

C/1999 S4 is losing so much of its mass to solar vaporization that it's being pushed and shoved by the reaction force of its own gaseous jets. Just as a jet airplane under its own power does not follow a ballistic trajectory, LINEAR's orbit is not a perfect gravitational ellipse.

Somehow, ices and volatiles that observations showed didn't exist were able to create "jets" on the comet. Ludicrous on its face, in hindsight. Even if the ices and volatiles had been present, the comet was at a distance from the sun approximately equal to that of Venus. The neccessary volatiles, and the mechanism for solar heating causing them to sublimate explosively as they lay underneath naturally-occuring rock jet nozzles, don't exist. Neither do naturally-occurring rock jet nozzles.

5

[5]

A separate announcement in the same issue of Science describes how scientists using an instrument on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory watched a cloud of hydrogen (the by-product of dissociating water vapor) billow into space as Comet LINEAR's ice evaporated in the warmth of the Sun. That team estimates the comet harbored within its nucleus about 3.3 billion kilograms of water, enough to fill a small lake.

More evidence that hydrogen, not water, was observed. Even assuming all this hydrogen was water inside the comet, it would only amount to 3.3 billion kilograms, which is about 1% of the comet's total estimated mass. The lake metaphor is apt. This hypothesis is like suggesting a frozen lake that holds an entire continent together.

Comet LINEAR had plenty of water, but was it the same type of water found here on Earth?

Plenty of water for what? 1% of the total composition is plenty?

However, Comet LINEAR apparently was born in a part of the solar system where water was more Earth-like. Using telescopes at the W. M. Keck Observatory and the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility, Mumma and colleagues studied the comet's chemistry and concluded that it must have formed around the orbit of Jupiter.

I wonder if these researchers know that they're contradicting other researchers at NASA who say this was the comet's first passage through the solar system, as noted above.

6

[6]

The character of the comet did not change throughout the months of observation by SWAN, even when deep layers inside the nucleus were being laid bare. Comet scientists usually have to consider the possibility that the surface of the nucleus is different in composition from the interior. One lesson from the 'SWAN song' of Comet LINEAR seems to be that, in this case at least, the surface exposed at the outset was representative of the whole nucleus.

SWAN data says the comet was the same, inside, and outside. The nucleus was homogenous, rock on the outside, rock on the inside, 100%+/-2%.

The SWAN team also suspects that Comet LINEAR was as flimsy and light as the expanded polystyrene used for packing fragile equipment. The density of its water ice may have been as low as 15 kilograms per cubic meter, compared with 917 kg/m3 for familiar non-porous ice on the Earth. Even allowing for a possibly equal mass of dust grains within the comet, a total density of 30 kg/m3 would be far less than the 500 kg/m3 often assumed by comet scientists.

The reason the density calculation here comes up with such a ridiculously low figure is because they ignore 95% of the comet's derived mass. The hydrogen (assuming it all came from water) and volatiles were approximately 2% of the mass. "Even allowing for a possibility of equal mass of dust grains within the comet", that still only accounts for a maximum of around 5% of the comet's mass. Why is only 5% of the mass used to calculate density? Instead of accepting the low percentage of water, they seem to have decided to change the comet's total mass.

7

[7]

Mr. Weaver says scientists are not sure why LINEAR broke up. He says no other comet has fallen apart in the way LINEAR did. He says the comet was not close to any large object. This means LINEAR was not torn apart by a gravitational force.

Not sure? I thought it was because the 1% of ices melted and the rest was made of stryofoam packing material? It was not torn apart by gravitational force, so the ad hoc assumption that it was flimsy and insubstantial may be abandoned.

Mr. Weaver says frozen carbon monoxide gas probably was not involved. This gas can cause a sudden pressure increase in the center of a comet. But Mr. Weaver says LINEAR had fifty times less carbon monoxide than comets Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake.

Carbon monoxide was not responsible. This ad hoc condition was suggested based on the derived temperatures due to solar heating when LINEAR was closest to the sun. Since volatiles were not present in the debris, this ad hoc condition may be abandoned.

Mr. Weaver says there is another mystery connected with LINEAR. He says the comet's estimated mass was about three-hundred-thousand-million kilograms.

Three-hundred-thousand-million kilograms is three hundred billion kilograms, which is approximately 100 times the mass contributed by hydrogen (assuming it was all locked in water).

Mr. Weaver thinks the missing mass may be in pieces no bigger than fifty meters across. Hubble and other telescopes would not be able to see these pieces. Comet pieces of such size are unusual. Scientists believe gravity pulls together much larger objects to form comets. Mr. Weaver says the existence of medium-size pieces may change that theory.

Yet more evidence indicating "that theory" is broken, but no matter, it can be patched with some tar and feathers.

8

[8]

However, astronomers were able to get a fairly good estimate of the amount of water sublimated, or transformed from a solid to a gas, from the nucleus of LINEAR by the sun's heat. And when they compared that to their estimates of the mass of LINEAR's nucleus, a different picture emerged. LINEAR appears to have been mostly meteoritic material with some ice.

And by "some" he means about 1%, according to the data. Is a rock with one percent of its mass composed of water ice considered a rocky iceball or an icy rockball?

"We know from spectrographic observations taken with Hubble and ground-based telescopes in early July 2000 that LINEAR didn't have a lot of carbon monoxide, a 'super volatile' compound found in some comets," says Weaver. "That would have been high on the list of potential contributors to the breakup."

Carbon monoxide is considered a "super volatile". LINEAR showed virtually none.

"Originally, Fred Whipple in 1950 when he put forth his dirty snowball model of cometary nuclei, we had a picture of a comet being roughly half and half-ice and meteoritic material. And that has basically persisted up until the current day. There may be variation among the comets depending on how far they formed from the sun. But in this particular case, it now appears that there was probably hundreds of times more meteoritic material than there was ice. So in that sense, instead of being a dirty snowball, it's a snowy dirtball. So we kind of changed the emphasis completely around, so instead of being y'know this snowball type thing, it's more like a dirtball with a little bit of snow mixed in."

Weaver explains in detail why LINEAR is a "dirtball with a little bit of snow mixed in". It's because "it now appears that there was probably hundreds of times more meteoritic material than there was ice".

Listen to Weaver explain it here!: http://www.jhu.edu:8080/ramgen/news_info/realmedia/snowydirtball.rm

9

[9]

"The first hint of trouble for Comet LINEAR came from ground-based observations at the Lowell Observatory from June 10 to June 12, when significant variations in the comet's brightness were first detected," says Hal Weaver, a research scientist in physics and astronomy at The Johns Hopkins University.

The comet LINEAR began fragmenting a month before it came apart, when it was even further away from the sun than Venus is. Was solar heating enough to break off chunks of rock at this distance? Weaver explains above the comet was almost 100% rock.

These variations were originally attributed to rotation of the comet's nucleus, a common phenomenon known to change the brightness of comets. But when Weaver recently looked back at the data he began to suspect the change had links to the comet's eventual demise.

Weaver's first conclusion was wrong. Now, since the comet has come apart and he's had a few months to think about it, he's decided it started a month earlier, at the time he previously identified as rotational brightness change. He fails to explain what caused this flare, if not sublimating "super volatile" carbon monoxide, or water ice.

On July 7, Weaver and his collaborators used the Hubble Space Telescope to study the comet and captured pictures of a large chunk of the comet breaking away and moving down its tail, presumably being pushed away by jets of gas emanating from its surface. These jets are produced as sunlight boils ice on the comet directly into water vapor.

If the jets are gasses, where do the gasses come from? Not from water or volatiles, which were present in only trace amounts. What is the cause of these jets?

The Hubble images revealed a spectacular field of about a dozen mini-comets near the edge of the broad tail of dust seen in the earlier ground-based images. Each of the fragments had its own comet-like tail.

Every fragment of rock became a "mini-comet". Why? Weaver does not explain.

"We still do not understand what caused this comet to come apart, and don't generally understand what causes fragments to break off comets," says Weaver. "By continuing to investigate the data from Comet LINEAR, and folding in everything we know about other comets as well, maybe somewhere downstream we can explain what happened with a detailed physical model."

Weaver admits he doesn't understand why the comet came apart, or why any fragments at all come off any comets ever. He doesn't understand because he's laboring under erroneous assumptions.

10

[10]

Scientists don't know exactly what comets are made of. But they're thought to represent the composition of the outer solar system in its primordial state.

This article makes an important distinction between what is known and what is merely thought.

Troll Mafia

New Tactics by Raul654 and his Alts!

Apparently Raul654 doesn't appreciate me putting pictures on the mask article. I put a picture on there to illustrate masks used to hide identities, and after trying to bait me into a revert war[11], he has had Snowspinner and Smoddy put their heads together and avoid some conflict. Conflict of interests, most likely, between the interests of wikipedia and the personal interests of Raul654. Plautus satire 16:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Threats Made by Raul654

threat to ban and crackpot insult

Just so that later, you don't claim that you weren't warned -- the site has become much less tolerant of crackpots since you, erm, deprived us of your company. If you go for a repeat performance, you'll find you won't be here very long this time.

Also, I suspect people will be keeping a very close eye on your edits from now on. →Raul654 03:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)[12]

I especially like this one. He also insults me by calling me a crackpot. This guy sure does know how to provoke people. Plautus satire 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

insult in page histories comment

(cur) (last) 09:54, 29 July 2005 Raul654 (rv typically Plautus conspiracy theory - the existance of snuff films is an urban legend)[13]

What conspiracy theories? The Nick Berg video is mentioned, those "killers" wore masks. How many other instances of masked killers in videos do I need to show you to get it through your very-protective skull? Plautus satire 16:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Email to Travis

The following is an email I sent to Travis Mason-Bushman:

This isn't going to be easy for you to hear or to accept, but you have been lied to and taken advantage of for a personal agenda. If you look at the changes I made, you'll see I was not making the same edits every time, and I did not revert changes made by another editor three times. Don't just take these people's word for it because you think you know and trust them. This is bogus and I am being railroaded. I have been back for less than one day and already people are trying to get me banned. Don't be a party to this perversion, you have a chance to make it right. Take off the ban, look at the changes I made, this was an absolute setup, anyone can see that, just look at the actual changes I made, not just the summaries injected by this gang of hooligans who've disguised themselves as reasonable. Do the right thing, here!

--- Travis Mason-Bushman <travis (at) gpsports-eng.com> wrote:

> Plautus, > > You have been blocked for a violation of the three revert rule - which can > be found at WP:3RR. This policy states that no editor may revert another > editor's change more than three times within any twenty-four (24) hour > period. You did so at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire and > it was requested by another editor that you be blocked for such violation. I > carried out the policy. Please review all applicable Wikipedia policies > before you edit again. > > Respectfully, > > Travis Mason-Bushman > FCYTravis (at) en.wikipedia > travis (at) gpsports-eng.com

It should be clear this is an obvious attempt by a gang of thugs posing as decent people. They have maliciously reverted my attempts to reach a compromise edition of a page that shouldn't even exist and was nominated for deletion. You can not get around the three-revert-rule by using proxy stooges! Plautus satire 05:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You have no answer, FCYTravis? You can't show me the violations? I'm not surprised. Plautus satire 05:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever read the rules, FCYTravis?

The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. The admins are under no obligation to block a user for breaking the 3RR, for instance if they see that the problem has been resolved in another manner.

Why have you been so hasty, FCYTravis? Is a defunct requests for comments page so important to all of wikipedia that you had to act in such a lightning-fast and reckless fashion using your admin authority? And where are these violations? Feel free to quote the changes I made so everyone can see you've overstepped your bounds. Plautus satire 06:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice Tapdancing

The problem wasn't resolved in another manner, and your edit was substantially the same - blanking a valid Request for Comment page, which is against Wikipedia policy. All such pages are retained for historic reference. If you believe I have acted wrongly, feel free to request other admins to unblock you. If you feel I have violated policy, please feel free to report my alleged wrongs at WP:RFC in the appropriate area. I won't be able to respond further today as I will be working and away from the Internet. Thank you for letting me know how you feel. FCYTravis 06:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem, exactly, FCYTravis? This is NOT a valid requests for comment page, since it's over a year old and I haven't been involved in any disputes since that one was resolved. AND I did not continue to blank the page once I realized it was to be kept, I archived the material on a subpage and linked it from the main page. And by kept, I don't mean kept in the page histories, because those will always be there. What is it you were protecting, FCYTravis? No information was lost, and all of it was accessible through the requests for comments page. Please, FCYTravis, show me some more tapdancing. WHAT OR WHO WERE YOU PROTECTING? Why don't you try PROTECTING my personal photograph, which was nominated for deletion in an obvious act of vandalism! Plautus satire 06:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No Violation Means No Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before returning to edit. Thank you. FCYTravis 05:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I violated no such rule. I demand that you show me the violations. Plautus satire 05:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is the edit history, it's clear to see other people were the one doing the reverts:

(cur) (last) 23:20, 27 July 2005 CesarB (vfd result: speedy keep)

(cur) (last) 23:15, 27 July 2005 Raul654 m (Reverted edits by Plautus satire to last version by Drini)

(cur) (last) 23:13, 27 July 2005 Plautus satire (Defunct threads exist elsewhere. This information here is redundant, and all your reverts are wasting db space.)

(cur) (last) 23:11, 27 July 2005 Drini (rv)

(cur) (last) 23:08, 27 July 2005 Plautus satire (archiving defunct resolved threads)

(cur) (last) 23:02, 27 July 2005 Snowspinner (Restore content)

(cur) (last) 23:00, 27 July 2005 Plautus satire (Vfd)

(cur) (last) 22:55, 27 July 2005 Snowspinner m (Reverted edits by Plautus satire to last version by CesarB)

(cur) (last) 22:54, 27 July 2005 Plautus satire m (No dispute, no requests for comment page.)

(cur) (last) 22:46, 27 July 2005 CesarB m (Reverted edits by Plautus satire to last version by Snowspinner)

(cur) (last) 22:42, 27 July 2005 Plautus satire m (There is no request for comments about me, that is the first step of arbitration. ARBITRATION OF WHAT DISPUTE?)

(cur) (last) 22:33, 27 July 2005 Snowspinner (In light of his return, this should probably not be a redirect anymore.)

Plautus satire 05:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the information five times, I deleted it a couple times, then I moved it to a subpage, you need to check your facts, this block is unwarranted and you know it. Take your personal agenda somewhere else, Snowspinner. Plautus satire 05:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Doctor-0001.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Doctor-0001.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Why is my personal photo being nominated for deletion? This is obvious vandalism of my user page. Plautus satire 06:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Doctor-0001.jpg [14]

Thebainer Defends His Vandalism

The image in question is in my opinion unencyclopaedic. That is, it does not seem to have any application in an encyclopaedia. If you can think of an encyclopaedic application for this image, then by all means add a comment at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. --bainer (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How many other personal photographs have you nominated for deletion in this fashion? You do realize that is vandalism, do you not? The image is a picture of me, it is in the public domain, and you know that. Remove the request for deletion, now, you are in violation. Plautus satire 06:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As an example, an image like Image:Adam21.jpg (a photo of User:Adam Carr) is useful because it depicts a prominent user and contributor to the Wikipedia. If I were to open my Britannica and see a photo of one of the contributors, I would consider it useful. If I saw a photo of what appears to be a person wearing something on their head, I wouldn't think it was useful at all. --bainer (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a contributor. I think you need to check your facts here, and stop vandalising my user page. Plautus satire 06:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thebainer, I suggest you stop editing until your wikistress level goes down. According to your user page, you are

. Have a nice day, ta-ta! Plautus satire 06:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Round 3

Hi! Plautus satire 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So I see you've sat out your second full year ban. The first time I see you make a bad edit, I'm going to block you for a month. Raul654 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten [15] me, I don't respond kindly to threats from overinflated doughboys. Plautus satire 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a week for personal attacks. Raul654 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, yes, wonderful, thank you so much. You are truly a man among men. I am so glad that wikipedia has somebody like you in it. You are the most righteous dude, I swear, I can't remember the last time I met somebody so fantastic. Plautus satire 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban

I have indefinitely blocked you, because I cannot imagine why we need to deal with this a third time. Perhaps the folks at http://www.wikipediareview.com would like to talk to you? Phil Sandifer 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Emailed personal attacks

Please don't send emails like the one that you sent me (copied below). BCorr|Брайен 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Received: by 10.90.94.11 with SMTP id r11cs963501agb; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.35.17 with SMTP id n17mr8298998pyj; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org>
Received: from dave.mr.itd.xxxx.xxx (dave.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.70]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 40si5057118nzf.2006.09.11.00.38.26; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 141.211.14.70 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org)
Received: FROM mail.wikimedia.org (mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.221]) BY dave.mr.itd.xxxx.xxx ID 45051272.3BFCB.18365 ; 11 Sep 2006 03:38:26 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain (srv83.pmtpa.wmnet [10.0.2.83]) by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC61A3A98 for <BCorr@xxxx.xxx>; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (srv83 [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8B7cPKM005095 for <BCorr@xxxx.xxx>; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:38:25 GMT
Received: (from apache@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k8B7cOJt005093; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:38:24 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:38:24 GMT
Message-Id: <200609110738.k8B7cOJt005093@localhost.localdomain>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
To: Bcorr <BCorr@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Plautus satire <plautus_satire@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Raul654 and Phil Sandifer have blocked me indefinitely after two one-year bans, I have not even edited a single article since the previous ban expired, and already Raul654 has instigated his personal vendetta against me. He is a menace to wikipedia and an overinflated fat toad with way too much free time on his hands. If you are able to, help me reverse this ban, I have done absolutely nothing to deserve it except defend my edits as vigorously as Raul654 and his pals and alts have done. Help make wikipedia a better place by not only reinstating my editing priveleges but also by helping me get Raul654 removed from wikipedia. He is a destructive influence who lets his personal feelings about people cloud his reason and close his eyes. He is a spiteful, wretched man, let's clear him and his kind off wikipedia. Any reply is deeply appreciated. For two years this bonehead has been harassing me on wikipedia and hiding behind his admin status. I know for a fact not every admin on wikipedia is his friend. Be my friend, help me fight back against this fool.

Plautus Satire

I am also a recipient of the above message. I've reviewed the situation, and it's clear that in this situation and past ones he has repeatedly violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have updated the page User:Plautus satire with a description of the previous bans (this description had previously been deleted from the page), and updated it with a description of the current ban. - Brian Kendig 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - 3 seperate admins have emailed me in private to inform me they have recieved (verbatim) the same email Bcorr posted above. As I said below, Plautus is going back to the same bag of tricks he used in 2004 - mass emailing admins and hoping one is naive enough to take the bait. Raul654 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Next email

Personal attacks are not allowed via email either, Plautus, and you risk being reblocked, as you have just (3 minutes ago) emailed the following to me from the same email account via Wikipedia's email function (I'll forgo the headers this time, unless someone requests them):

"Stop vandalizing my talk page, you shit-eating maggot. Where do you find time away from taking your boyfriend's cock up your ass to post on wikipedia?"

This is your last warning. BCorr|Брайен 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Well, here's the latest email sent through the Wikipedia email function:

"What attack? It's a legitemate question, when do you find time in between eating shit and taking your boyfriend's cock up your ass to post on wikipedia and vandalize my talk page? You must be superhuman, at least when it comes to shit-eating, cock-fucking and wiki-posting. Do you have less of a life than that fat bitch Raul654? What about his personal attacks on me? You ignore those because you're an ignoramus and a hypocrite like he is."

Therefore, Plautus satire, you have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by making repeated personal attacks after warnings. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} BCorr|Брайен 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to reply to his attacks. He's been blocked indefinitely, and now he's repeating the same tactic he used in 2004 - mass emailing people asking to be unblocked. Raul654 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your email

Hello, Plautus satire. I have received your emailed appeal for me to unblock you. I have two main points to make in response.

Firstly, I've had an extensive look over your history, and I've found more than ample reason for your block to stand. Your have been consistently confontational, responding to even minor offenses with often vicious name-calling.
Second, the very content of your emailed request give me every indication that you are perfectly content to maintain this pattern. For example, in your email your refer to Raul654 as "a menace to wikipedia and an overinflated fat toad with way too much free time on his hands", "a destructive influence", "a spiteful, wretched man", and a "bonehead". Furthermore you suggest you hope to improve Wikipedia by introducing further conflict by asking me to "help make wikipedia a better place by not only reinstating my editing priveleges but also by helping me get Raul654 removed from wikipedia".

From what I've seen, it looks to me as though you genuinely believe that you're singularly entitled to hurl abuse at other editors, and that you have a long-standing pattern of blaming others for your actions. In your own words you make it very clear that your primary reason to return is to exact some kind of revenge on those who you feel have wronged you. I can only conclude that to unblock you would be unwise. – Clockwork Soul 03:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Plautus - You must make peace with Raul. You must respect him as an adult. The sooner you learn this, and the sooner you admit that you were wrong for all of those years, the sooner your frustrations will end. WhisperToMe 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sending me an email in which you attack other users and provide no examples of unfair treatment to yourself ensures that I will not even bother to review your block. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Note about trolling emails

Hello fellow admins and other editors. It is obvious from the messages on this talk page that this editor – Plautus satire – has been sending angry and abusive emails regarding his permanent, community-imposed, and well-deserved ban from Wikipedia.

No further replies to that message are necessary on this page, and such replies will only serve to feed a troll. Have a nice day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/User_talk%7EPlautus_satire_d7b1.html"