User talk:UniverseToday/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, UniverseToday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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!  Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Can you please read my addition to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fraser_Cain Nobody seems to have read it. UniverseToday 00:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)UT

Somebody edited that link changing fraser_cain to Frasie_Crane. I've changed it back.

Contents

Request for investigation

I've posted a Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests regarding your incessant linkspamming. I'm noticing you so you can post whatever you think would be appropriate in your defense. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

Why are there external link sections in most of the articles if nobody is allowed to add links or "linkspam" as you obnoxiously like to describe it? Every link I have added is relevant and useful. Investigate away but I think most Wikipedians have better things to do with their time than pick on newcomers over such silly claims. I do not have to provide a defence as I have done nothing wrong. If I am guilty of some sort of breach in Wikiquette by adding links then I daresay most Wikipedians are also guilty and the charge must be expanded to include just about everyone. Your obsession with nitpicking on such an order of magnitude is reflective of your article quality. You would never get published in any respectable magazine requiring talent so you choose to make yourself feel a big man by repudiating others. In short you need to get a life and possibly a girlfriend.

In summary, no rules have been broken and nobody has been hurt. This is just a time wasting exercise. While cruising around getting the feel of the place I contributed links to a few pages. Now I am starting to write articles. I hope the investigators will treat this churlish claim by Reaverdrop with the contempt and ridicule it so thoroughly deserves. In the time I have wasted responding to this person I could have made headway into my second article. Now I'm not sure I'll even bother. No doubt I will have to go undo the vandalism commited by this guy. UniverseToday 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's upsetting to be called into question like this, but I believe your tone is entirely inappropriate. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please desist. --William Pietri 06:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing has no tone. It can bring about revolutions and topple nations but it never has a tone. I apologise about the personal remarks. They were uncalled for. But so was the term "linkspamming". Nobody likes being accused of something they haven't done. Adding links is not a crime. Wasting peoples time is. UniverseToday 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Zubrin

Please stop promoting your own sites on pages like this. Also, personal attacks in edit comments are still personal attacks. --William Pietri 06:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You don't think that RobertZubrin.com is an appropriate link for a page entitled Robert Zubrin? Please explain. It should be both interesting and amusing. I might write an article about it. But not at Wikipedia. How is it relevant that I own the domain? It could belong to Donald Duck and it would still be relevant to the page. It is absurd to claim otherwise. Why would it be ok for somebody else to post a link and not me? Why am I wasting time explaining what should be patent commonsense? UniverseToday 06:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. I believe your relentless self-promotion is inappropriate; see WP:NOT and WP:VAIN. If others think your links useful they will add them. They haven't, which should tell you something. --William Pietri 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It tells me that people who know nothing write nothing. Who else would add it but a space enthusiast who owns space domains? You didn't answer any of my questions so I won't answer any more of yours. Let the authorities work it out then. Tribunal time I think. Goodbye.

Errrmmm... OK then.
 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 12 hours. [Robert Zubrin Here] are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

accusations

In reference to this edit you made to my user talk page I would like to kindly request you refrain from accusing me of vandalism and/or sockpuppetry without hard evidence to back it up. I expect not to see such wild accusations from you on my user talk page or anywhere else or I will report it to the administrators of Wikipedia.--Kalsermar 14:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your childish accusation of linkspamming I would like to kindly request you refrain from accusing me without hard evidence to back it up. I expect not to see such wild accusations from you on my user talk page or anywhere else or I will report it to the administrators of Wikipedia. UniverseToday 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this account indefinitely as a puppet account of User:Universe Daily. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

UNBLOCKED

Unfairly in my opinion. I argued my case with your bosses and have now been unbanned. Have a nice day you vindictive little straw man. UniverseToday 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Domain names to monitor

User currently owns these names. At least one has been re-directed to a porn site after posting at numerous websites. by anonymous user

This is a lie. Provide proof that ANY of my sites go to porn sites. UniverseToday 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal info about domains removed as it was clogging up space.

This post is I suspect by Yales. An internet stalker who I'm surprised took so long to attack me here. He posts such libel all over the net. None of my domains go to porn sites. The fact that this poster is anonymous says volumes. UniverseToday 05:43, 28 July 2006 (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: "(NO REASON GIVEN)"

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison This vindictive little man has once more banned me without any legitimate reason whatsoever. I am sick and tired of his pathetic games. Will somebody please dress this guy down. I posted one paragraph here in response to A REAL TROLL and then went to add some discussion to a page only to find that Tom-harrison had abused his powers YET AGAIN. UniverseToday 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok! I've looked through the rules about banning and can't find anything at all about ownership of more than one username being a legitimate excuse for a permanent ban. Clearly this Tom Harrison joker is abusing his powers. Other admins unbanned me and this clown just bans me again immediately. Its ridiculous. Almost as crazy as the ban by Antandrus for posting that Israel is a part of Palestine. ISRAEL IS A PART OF PALESTINE. The middle east does not acknowledge Israel after its 1948 illegal occupation so how can it be anything but a part of Palestine? Contentious as it might be to the Zionist administrator Antandrus it is certainly not grounds for banning me. Are all Wikipedian administrators as shallow and corrupt as these sad specimens? UniverseToday 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy you're looking for is WP:SOCK. I don't know how Tom Harrison came to that conclusion on July 3, but it's obvious to me now; you're defending an edit Universe Daily made [1], not you. The edit in question is very contentious, and you should discuss it more on the talk page, but this has nothing to do with your block; that account is not blocked but this one is. If you want to switch to using THIS account instead, have both accounts make the request on their talk pages, and re-add the unblock tag here. Mangojuicetalk 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said! As I keep saying, I'm a new user. All this crap being said about me is just that. A pile of utter crap. Tags, socks, talkpages! Its all gibberish to me. How can you even say its MY talk page when every time I edit it the page gets deleted. Its clear nobody has a talk page. Whatever that is. Listen! I've already promised numerous times to leave these crybabies alone, stop adding links and stick to editing text on pages. I've seen several pages with poor wording and am sick of these silly arguments with mentally deficient retards. Just give me back my accounts and leave me alone. These pathetic straw men are so boring and I have better things to do than talk with these idiots. If this is all Wikipedia has to offer then I'll dedicate my time to writing articles about what a monumental waste of internet space the whole thing is. I've already participated in the collection of research material for one reporters article to be published at USA Today. If I'm going to be unfairly banned forever then I might as well use it as a basis for another article. As you say, everything here is recorded and the silly reasons given for my ban are going to amuse readers greatly. UniverseToday 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your block log

I blocked this account indefinitely on 3 June, and see no blocks or unblocks since then. Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 28 July 2006 (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: "see below"

Decline reason: "As above WP:SOCK is the policy in question though it should be pretty self evident. Engaging in personal attacks and inciivlity whilst blocked certainly is doing you no favours."

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

That response to my request for an unblock only confirms how petty and dishonest administrators at Wikipedia are. If you do not allow me to post then I will surf pages collecting data instead. Then spend every moment of my free time posting negative stories about Wikipedia all over the net. Your history of charactor assasination has already been well documented in USA Today and many other GENUINE sources of information and I suppose one more Wiki hating reporter won't bother you much. But I'll enjoy shovelling extra manure on top of this despicably corrupt place anyhow. Your choice you lying and biased little people. UniverseToday 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was told by another administrator that I was unblocked. I think his handle was here_to_help or something similar. Was he referring to another account then? Why are you being such a jerk? I haven't done anything seriously wrong and certainly nothing I was aware of. I'm a newbie and don't know Wiki's endless pages of rules. Show me where I can't have more than one username. Why is my ban forever? You are not very forgiving of new users.UniverseToday 06:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you atleast correct the title on the Project Orion page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 It says Nuclear Propulsion in brackets. I'm certain it is supposed to read Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. Thankyou. UniverseToday 06:28, 29 July 2006 (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: "See above."

Decline reason: "Since you have a history of vandalism and whether you should ultimately remain unblocked is questionable, you must stick to only one account. This sockpuppet will not be unblocked."

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

Unblock denied. Do not ask again. Pilotguy (roger that) 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your email

Leaving aside whether "Grow up Jerk!" is likely to persuade me to unblock this account, why don't you just use User:Universe Today? Tom Harrison Talk 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/User_talk%7EUniverseToday_Archive_e018.html"