From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Dauphinee! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Esrever (klaT) 14:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
Getting started
|
|
|
|
Getting help
|
|
|
|
Policies and guidelines
|
|
|
|
The community
|
|
|
Writing articles
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Arthur C. Clarke, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Wwheaton (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Arthur C. Clarke. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Wwheaton (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Arthur C. Clarke. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. We do NOT out people by default, even if they are dead. Reliable source, please, or continue being reverted. --Rodhullandemu 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
--Rodhullandemu 01:25, 4 June 2008 (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: "abusive admin action by other party to content dispute who failed to cite any source"
Decline reason: "While properly Rod should have left it to another admin to review your actions and decide if a block was justified, the fact is it was. You were edit warring over Arthur C. Clarke and editing disruptively and tendentiously. Plus let me warn you, I can't see what your goal was in adding that link to the list of films depicting pedophilia and sexual abuse of children to a number of articles where that would serve no clear purpose. You're treading on some dangerous ground there, and were it up to me you'd have been blocked indef. Don't let it be. Consider why you were blocked when this expires, and don't let it happen again. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (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.
[edit] Arthur C. Clarke Gayness Sources
"Once they have reached the age of puberty, it is OK... It doesn't do any harm. I am trying to think of the youngest boy I have ever had because, of course, you can't tell it here. I think most of the damage comes from the fuss made by hysterical parents afterwards. If the kids don't mind, fair enough." (Arthur C Clarke)
"I corresponded with Clarke for several years. I wrote about his post-religious spirituality in a couple of my books and cleared my acknowledgement of his sexual identity with him. So I have no qualms about my including him in the pantheon of homosexual seers ... He demurred about coming out publicly as gay, he wrote, because he felt this fact would be used to discredit his ideas."
Dauphinee (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] To Reviewing Admin
This is only a "content dispute" insofar as what can be reliably sourced. It is clear from here that the first source, since the allegations were later retracted, cannot be relied upon. Similarly, the second is hardly unbiased and the third is unconfirmed hearsay. The matter has been thoroughly aired here and I don't see this editor taking part in the formation of consensus. If you think I've misinterpreted WP:RS, WP:V or WP:SYNTH in this case, please unblock Dauphinee. Meanwhile, he has had the gamut of warnings and has still not seen fit to raise the matter on the article's talk page. --Rodhullandemu 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- The source confirming the relevant fact(s) about Arthur C. Clarke is already there. You don't have a source against it. Just the absence of judgement and the unfitness to abuse admin authorities without showing the willingness to enter discussion and to condenscend to offering your own source. There's no tolerating elements of your kind who immediately do that sort of thing to prevail in content disagreements that they're part of. I have four sources and you have zero plus the mountain of your own corruption. Its right to expose that.Dauphinee (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- ...and, of course, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Rodhullandemu 02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing could be more uncivil and unprincipled that to do what you did for your own sake without entering discussing. Also quit lying that 'personal attacks' were any part of your motivation to abuse admin authorities for your own benefit without citing countervailing sources in a content disagreement with an ordinary user. Dauphinee (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (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: "Wrong. Not only did that other person corruptly abuse authority, as you admit. They also 'edit-warred' twice as much and more egregiously than I by having suppressed the catgories in dispute a total four times (count it), that I've supplied twice. I've supplied informative summaries while, abusively, they've suppressed each with the insulting characterisation that the content is 'vandalism'. Hellooo, it's THEY who are bereft of a supporting reference while I can assert those already in the article on top of 3 described above. You work to condone their pure arrogance to dismiss informed content as 'vandalism' and their corruption to abuse admin authority to stop the possibility of discussion which, incidentally, they've refused to initiate themselves despite participating as an editor. So grow some orbs and do the RIGHT thing this time and UNBLOCK so they can be challenged to supply even one reference again the four I'm able to assert/rely upon. What more evidence do you require that I'm correct on the fact and they're wrong but spinelessly WP:GAMEing because of no stomach for a showdown of facts and references?? You've acted with no honour and it's suggested now that you quit the delay tactic and aspire to find that quality by actually doing the right thing on your second try."
Decline reason: "Unblock requests that contain personal attacks at other editors are not acted upon. — Sandstein 05:58, 4 June 2008 (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.
[edit] Blocked again
--Rodhullandemu 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
