User talk:AGNPH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is currently protected from editing to prevent AGNPH (talk • contribs • block log ^auto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

1 Your recent edits
2 AFD
3 AGNPH
- 3.1 Encyclopedia Dramatica
4 October 2007
5 Move along
6 Multiple accounts?

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD

Perhaps you need to read the comments on that page, and also read WP:RS. The ones you added (Urban Dictionary, Acronym Finder, Encyclopedia Dramatica) are not reliable sources. - Rjd0060 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize these area all opinions, but in the past (despite their listings on on other articles) those are not reliable. - Rjd0060 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why dont you remove them from all those other wikipedia articles that cite them as sources aswell? AGNPH 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they are not the only sources. They have other reliable sources. -Rjd0060 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? they even have wikipedia articles about them. AGNPH 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles about a lot of things. I do not know why these seem to be disputed other than the fact that they are just not reliable. Those sites consist mostly of original research, which is something avoided on Wikipedia.- Rjd0060 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, have you read the 1st AfD?. There seem to be the same problems with the new article. - Rjd0060 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AGNPH

Hi. You have requested the reason that the link to Encyclopædia Dramatica keeps getting removed from the article AGNPH. It is because it was ruled by the Arbitration Committee that

"Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia..."

You can see the whole discussion here, and take special note to this section. Hope that answers your question. - Rjd0060 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ED is a website that contains lots of provocative content, i can understand why Wikipedia does not want to link to pages that harrass their own admins. however, the AGNPH article has nothing to do with harrassment of anyone so theres no reason to remove a link to it. AGNPH 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom has made a ruling. They are the "higher-ups" here. Keep adding the link, and you could/probably will be blocked, especially now that you have been informed of it. I've just removed it again, re-add it and you will be violating the WP:3RR and violating an Arb Com ruling. - Rjd0060 23:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Arb Com" made that ruling because ED has articles that attack wikipedia admins. I linked to a totally unrelated article that does not harrass anyone. give me one reason to remove the link. AGNPH 23:43, 14 October 2007

I already removed it. Links to ED may be removed. It is that simple. - Rjd0060 23:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No its not. Give me a reason to remove them. And "because some higher-ups said so" is not a reason. i have told you why this article is not harrassment and why there is no reason at all not to link to it. AGNPH 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a valid reason, and its the only reason I can give you. It is an Arbitration Committee ruling. Sorry you dont understand that. - Rjd0060 00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And this Arbitration Committee ruling is irrelevant here since this is a totally unrelated matter. Stop being so narrow minded. AGNPH 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you keep saying to give you a reason to remove them; they already were removed. - Rjd0060 00:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if I dont get a good reason for the link to be removed then i'm going to add it again. AGNPH 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the only reason there is. I will advise you (again) not to re-add the link. - Rjd0060 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No its not a reason. why do you refuse to reply to my comment saying that the Arb Com ruling (which was about articles that insulted wikipedia admins) is irrelevant to the AGNPH article (which links to an article on ED that doesnt harrass anyone)? AGNPH 00:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have thoroughly explained myself. Do what you want. - Rjd0060 00:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As you have been told, quite clearly and repeatedly, ED links are generally removed on sight. Being told this does not, in fact, mean 'keep adding them'. HalfShadow 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

give a reason to remove them. Ok, I'm going to repeat myself again... The "Arb Com" made that ruling because ED has articles that attack wikipedia admins. I linked to a totally unrelated article that does not harrass anyone. AGNPH 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

The Encyclopedia Dramatica is not, and never will be a reliable source. Try something like The Sunday Telegraph, or The Independent, or the like. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? AGNPH is an internet phenomenon. obviously it isnt reported in the Sunday Telegraph. instead, there are articles on it on other websites, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica and Urban Dictionary. AGNPH 01:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Those websites arne't reliable sources? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't get him started again, please... HalfShadow 01:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe | Talk 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I was discussing the changes (see above), but someone kept removing a WP:RS from the AGNPH article without citing a reason, and I have repeatedly asked them to give me a reason and to reply to my comment that the "Arb Com" ruling is unrelated to this, but they didn't respond. I was trying to discuss my changes (in fact, they weren't controversial changes, as the link was there when i created the article, but someone decided to remove it for no reason at all)."

Decline reason: "Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a reliable source - it is publicly editable, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples#Are wikis reliable sources? - and how can something you referred to as a satirical article be used as a source? What facts is it sourcing? You were reverted multiple times by multiple people and told multiple times by multiple people to stop adding the link, yet you persisted in doing it. You should have stopped and discussed, and not continued to edit war. — Mr.Z-man 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Request reason: "nobody removed the link because they didnt think of it as a reliable source, they removed the link citing some stupid "Arb Com Ruling" from 2 years ago that was totally unrelated to this (it was about articles that harrassed wikipedia admins and not articles about AGNPH), and they refused to discuss it with any argument other than "listen to me! the higher-ups have prohibited it!", and they even accused me of Wikipedia:Vandalism while all I did was trying to improve the integrity of the article by adding a WP:RS to it (not trying to compromise its integrity)"

Decline reason: "The Arbitration Committee's ruling is relevant Wikipedia-wide. It is a clarification of the argument (as presented in the AfD discussion) that ED is not a reliable source. Your repeated re-addition of the link—in violation of the three-revert rule—is disruptive. The block is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

For the record, you're evidently lucky it was me... let me tell you, I've got admins pushing for an indef block for disruption - and frankly, I'm not sure they're wrong. I strongly encourage you to sit this one out calmly and see the error of your ways. This is not a discussion that you're going to win. - Philippe | Talk 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied if even one of you could explain how a Arb Com Ruling from two years ago about wikipedia admins that were being harrassed by ED is relevant to a link to a satirical ED article on AGNPH that does not harrass anyone. thats all. AGNPH 01:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom rulings are relative forever. That's the whole point. HalfShadow 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a reliable source. Mr.Z-man 01:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That too. It would be like trying to say The Onion was a reliable source. HalfShadow 01:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. ZMan, nobody removed the links because ED is not a reliable source, they removed it because of some completely irrelevant Arb Com ruling. AGNPH 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that the ruling discusses the item in question. In other words, it's the reliable source for the assertion that ED is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You were told 3 times in User talk:AGNPH#AFD that it is not an RS. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Don't waste your time; it's clear he doesn't get it. If he does it again, he'll simply become a non-issue. HalfShadow

I completely agree at this point. It's on my watchlist. - Rjd0060 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Move along

Nothing to see here. Move along. It's not feeding time. - Philippe | Talk 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?

apparently i've been blocked for 'abusing multiple accounts'. Could you please point out what other accounts i have? Oh, and I was also blocked for "recreating deleted content", while (as someone pointed out on the deletion page) this AGNPH article was substantially different than the old version. AGNPH 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. You have been indefinitely blocked for:

- Rjd0060 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wished to recreate the article - which would be a mistake - the proper thing to do would have been deletion review. Your choice to simply ignore the will of the community was unacceptable. I endorse this block. - Philippe | Talk 15:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? i haven't recreated any article! I created the AGNPH article only once! and on the deletion page they said it was totally different than the old version! AGNPH 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hidden category: Protected user and user talk pages