![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
Welcome!
Hello and
welcome to
Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:STICK. Edited 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC) by - CobaltBlueTony™ talk.
You're wasting your time picking a fight. This is also considered disruptive. We all lose once in a while, but if you choose to actually make a big deal about what was obviously you vandalizing articles, you're not going to last long. Instead, please consider becoming a positive asset. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding rights: rights as you're referring to them are easily revoked when the user violates the terms of the site and instituted policies. No one has any inherent rights in a general sense, so your assertion that you'll continue to edit Wikipedia whether administrators like it or not is inherently subject to those same administrators' interpretation of community consensus-based policy.
Your claim that you were "merely gifting users with new messages" is patently false. The editing history of your previous account show absolutely no edits to user pages, with the exception of one user, Nufy8. You sent messages to no other users at all. Your only other communications were requests to unblock, on your own user page. Your messages, posted on Three articles and two article talk pages, appeared to send people to some other IP user's talk page, 201.233.115.166 ( talk · contribs). This is also not helpful. Making repetitive unhelpful edits is considered disruptive. We expect you to read messages given to you, and learn to work within them to become a beneficial member of this site. Disruption is negated by administrator action, which was appropriately applied against your previous account. It was not a permanent block.
Please consider FisherQueen's friendly advice, below. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your recent edits, which don't appear to do anything to make the encyclopedia better. If you're interested in making the encyclopedia better, you should just pick an article that needs improving and jump right in to make yourself useful. If you aren't sure that you're familiar enough with the rules yet, just read some of the links in your welcome message above, which contains most of them. However, if your only reason for participating at Wikipedia is to engage in personal conflicts, that is going to become a problem quite quickly; accounts which engage in such conflicts are sometimes blocked, especially if looking at their contribution logs doesn't reveal evidence that their participation makes the encyclopedia better. I don't know what happened with your previous ip, but this is your fresh start, to use as you choose. I'd hate to see you blocked before you'd even gotten started. My advice is, put your conflict aside for now, and look for something useful to do. Thanks! - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please halt all further discussion ad interim. Hiineedrequestforcomment ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Go back and check the edit summerys. Quote: "Go Away" KiraChinmoku ( T, ¤) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Right now what you're doing is called edit warring. Edit warring over something like fixing someone else's spelling on their own talk page is often looked at as harassment. You know he doesn't want you to fix it. If you're just here to pester him, by all means go ahead, it will all be over soon. If you're really here to build an encyclopedia, then do that somewhere other than his talk page.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Think reasonably. Per Wikipedia:Red link:
Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles.
There is no indication that the athlete's parents are notable for any reason. Given that this reasoning is on Wikipedia's official project page, and not a user's self-described opinion on the topic, I tend to follow what is generally accepted by the community consensus. Even so, Antandrus states: "Some judgment is required, of course, in inserting redlinks: consider whether the item is notable enough to merit its own article." [Italics mine.]
And I'll thank you not to lecture me. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. It seems recently you have been making a name for your self by arguing with other uses over petty subjects. My advice is to stop. I have looked over your contributions to Wikipedia and i am very impressed, keep up the good work, but try and maintain more of a neutral standing with your fellow users.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact either myself, another user or an administrator. KiraChinmoku ( T, ¤) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
jpgordon
::==( o )
23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)For what it's worth, the username didn't have much going for it, either. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiineedrequestforcomment ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I feel that this space is insufficient for what I have to say. My unblock request is below.
Decline reason:
Lots of us warned you that your edits were characteristic of someone about to be blocked, but the vast majority of your edits are disruptive, and the edit you link below is your one and only constructive edit. Considering that you were amply warned, I don't think it's necessary to unblock you- it doesn't seem that you enjoy making constructive edits nearly as much as you enjoy making drama, and Wikipedia has more than enough drama already. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I protest not for the sake of arguing but for the sake of independence, for the sake of speech freedom, for the sake of liberty. I returned to Wikipedia with this account as I said in my first contribution that "[t]he first course of action I must take is pursue defense of my actions on my previous account". I was blocked before I had settled that matter. I had not had the chance to become a constructive editor because I was not finished with my pursuit of justice. However, cum laude I left my streak on Bode Miller to the first sentence with my only mainspace edit. My contribution to that renowned, reformed skier will prevail for many years to come. My first argument against my block is that Jpgordon, an involved administrator, blocked me. This is an utter no-no on Wikipedia — an involved administrator, who himself is the epitome of most administrators (abusive, unkind, and unjust [not a personal attack]), blocking someone he dislikes. Through my praxeological observations, I have realized that Josh clearly demonstrates cui bono. By this unjust block, Wikipedia is regressing, I daresay, regressing into the reign of terror.
I propose that this block be dealt with in one of two of the following ways:
My last request is that an uninvolved administrator adjudicate between Jpgordon and me. Cobaltbluetony, Accounting4Taste, Newyorkbrad, Materialscientist (for their posts on my talk page) and DoRD and Rlendog (for their posts at the Administrators' noticeboard) are now involved, so please find an uninvolved administrator to review this.
If you worry about my not being constructive if I am unblocked, I ask that whoever is handling this request exsert those worries. After having been blocked for "[d]isruptive editing" on my previous account, I returned with this one. I returned to make amends. I returned to set right everything I disordered. I returned to assert my concerns. I returned with the hope of maintaining this stately encyclopedia, and I partially fulfilled this here. I would like to continue perfecting this great community. My last hope when I returned was to get blocked again, this time indefinitely, but instead to participate in the creation of an online encyclopedia destined to become the essence of Internet, the essence of knowledge, and the essence of perfection.
As Carl Rogers once said, "If we value independence, if we are disturbed by the growing conformity of knowledge, of values, of attitudes, which our present system induces, then we may wish to set up conditions of learning which make for uniqueness, for self-direction, and for self-initiated learning". I believe just that and hope to introduce it to the Wikipedia community.
I sincerely apologize for my attacks (as you put them) at administrators. To
Newyorkbrad, if you find problem with my username, if I get unblocked, I will be open to
changing my username.
I am a man true to my word, so don't hesitate to unblock me. Thanks,
Hiineedrequestforcomment (
talk)
20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is just further trolling and further harassment, the reasons for which you were blocked in the first place. I've changed the block to disable your ability to troll further here. Find somewhere else to play. If there is an administrator who sees this who is willing, for heaven knows what reason, to unblock this individual, feel free to do so on whatever terms you wish without consulting me. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I am back to pursue my case, not in the form of "trolling and harassment", but in a polite, urbane manner. I ask that you bear with me on this.
From alpha to omega, here is an aperçu.
My work on Wikipedia commenced rather abruptly when I made my
debut using
207.97.213.170. My subsequent edits were along the same line. I was promptly blocked for vandalism. In retrospect, I understand that my edits were definitely not constructive, but I would not construe them as vandalism, as I was just an abecedarian then.
I returned with Hiineedrequestforcomment to " pursue defense of my actions on my previous account". I was quite hostile to Jpgordon and continued to argue my case quite impolitely, insulting other users. After making my only constructive edit, I was blocked for "trolling and harassment". I continued to argue against my block, and my block settings were changed, disabling me from editing at all.
I returned with The Reformed Editor, truly thinking I was reformed. I created my userpage declaring that I was the alternate account of Hiineedrequestforcomment. I made several improvements to Julia Mancuso, Shaun White, Ted Ligety, Purna, Akola city, and 2010 Winter Olympics, but then I started arguing with users about the ranking of the 2010 Winter Olympics medal table. I do admit that my actions were quite inappropriate. Après reading my userpage promulgation, Andrwsc blocked me. I asked him tersely, "Does [my block] mean that all indefinitely-blocked users cannot ever return to Wikipedia to make changes, even if they are helpful?" This prompted him to change the block settings of Hiineedrequestforcomment to allow me to make my offer. Here I am now.
Thanks, Hiineedrequestforcomment ( talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently no one bothered to notify you, feeling that you might have been monitoring the relevant discussion. The relevant portion is reproduced here for your convenience:
So you won't be returning. Best of luck with your future efforts in other venues. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
Welcome!
Hello and
welcome to
Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:STICK. Edited 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC) by - CobaltBlueTony™ talk.
You're wasting your time picking a fight. This is also considered disruptive. We all lose once in a while, but if you choose to actually make a big deal about what was obviously you vandalizing articles, you're not going to last long. Instead, please consider becoming a positive asset. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding rights: rights as you're referring to them are easily revoked when the user violates the terms of the site and instituted policies. No one has any inherent rights in a general sense, so your assertion that you'll continue to edit Wikipedia whether administrators like it or not is inherently subject to those same administrators' interpretation of community consensus-based policy.
Your claim that you were "merely gifting users with new messages" is patently false. The editing history of your previous account show absolutely no edits to user pages, with the exception of one user, Nufy8. You sent messages to no other users at all. Your only other communications were requests to unblock, on your own user page. Your messages, posted on Three articles and two article talk pages, appeared to send people to some other IP user's talk page, 201.233.115.166 ( talk · contribs). This is also not helpful. Making repetitive unhelpful edits is considered disruptive. We expect you to read messages given to you, and learn to work within them to become a beneficial member of this site. Disruption is negated by administrator action, which was appropriately applied against your previous account. It was not a permanent block.
Please consider FisherQueen's friendly advice, below. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your recent edits, which don't appear to do anything to make the encyclopedia better. If you're interested in making the encyclopedia better, you should just pick an article that needs improving and jump right in to make yourself useful. If you aren't sure that you're familiar enough with the rules yet, just read some of the links in your welcome message above, which contains most of them. However, if your only reason for participating at Wikipedia is to engage in personal conflicts, that is going to become a problem quite quickly; accounts which engage in such conflicts are sometimes blocked, especially if looking at their contribution logs doesn't reveal evidence that their participation makes the encyclopedia better. I don't know what happened with your previous ip, but this is your fresh start, to use as you choose. I'd hate to see you blocked before you'd even gotten started. My advice is, put your conflict aside for now, and look for something useful to do. Thanks! - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please halt all further discussion ad interim. Hiineedrequestforcomment ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Go back and check the edit summerys. Quote: "Go Away" KiraChinmoku ( T, ¤) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Right now what you're doing is called edit warring. Edit warring over something like fixing someone else's spelling on their own talk page is often looked at as harassment. You know he doesn't want you to fix it. If you're just here to pester him, by all means go ahead, it will all be over soon. If you're really here to build an encyclopedia, then do that somewhere other than his talk page.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Think reasonably. Per Wikipedia:Red link:
Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles.
There is no indication that the athlete's parents are notable for any reason. Given that this reasoning is on Wikipedia's official project page, and not a user's self-described opinion on the topic, I tend to follow what is generally accepted by the community consensus. Even so, Antandrus states: "Some judgment is required, of course, in inserting redlinks: consider whether the item is notable enough to merit its own article." [Italics mine.]
And I'll thank you not to lecture me. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. It seems recently you have been making a name for your self by arguing with other uses over petty subjects. My advice is to stop. I have looked over your contributions to Wikipedia and i am very impressed, keep up the good work, but try and maintain more of a neutral standing with your fellow users.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact either myself, another user or an administrator. KiraChinmoku ( T, ¤) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
jpgordon
::==( o )
23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)For what it's worth, the username didn't have much going for it, either. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiineedrequestforcomment ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I feel that this space is insufficient for what I have to say. My unblock request is below.
Decline reason:
Lots of us warned you that your edits were characteristic of someone about to be blocked, but the vast majority of your edits are disruptive, and the edit you link below is your one and only constructive edit. Considering that you were amply warned, I don't think it's necessary to unblock you- it doesn't seem that you enjoy making constructive edits nearly as much as you enjoy making drama, and Wikipedia has more than enough drama already. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I protest not for the sake of arguing but for the sake of independence, for the sake of speech freedom, for the sake of liberty. I returned to Wikipedia with this account as I said in my first contribution that "[t]he first course of action I must take is pursue defense of my actions on my previous account". I was blocked before I had settled that matter. I had not had the chance to become a constructive editor because I was not finished with my pursuit of justice. However, cum laude I left my streak on Bode Miller to the first sentence with my only mainspace edit. My contribution to that renowned, reformed skier will prevail for many years to come. My first argument against my block is that Jpgordon, an involved administrator, blocked me. This is an utter no-no on Wikipedia — an involved administrator, who himself is the epitome of most administrators (abusive, unkind, and unjust [not a personal attack]), blocking someone he dislikes. Through my praxeological observations, I have realized that Josh clearly demonstrates cui bono. By this unjust block, Wikipedia is regressing, I daresay, regressing into the reign of terror.
I propose that this block be dealt with in one of two of the following ways:
My last request is that an uninvolved administrator adjudicate between Jpgordon and me. Cobaltbluetony, Accounting4Taste, Newyorkbrad, Materialscientist (for their posts on my talk page) and DoRD and Rlendog (for their posts at the Administrators' noticeboard) are now involved, so please find an uninvolved administrator to review this.
If you worry about my not being constructive if I am unblocked, I ask that whoever is handling this request exsert those worries. After having been blocked for "[d]isruptive editing" on my previous account, I returned with this one. I returned to make amends. I returned to set right everything I disordered. I returned to assert my concerns. I returned with the hope of maintaining this stately encyclopedia, and I partially fulfilled this here. I would like to continue perfecting this great community. My last hope when I returned was to get blocked again, this time indefinitely, but instead to participate in the creation of an online encyclopedia destined to become the essence of Internet, the essence of knowledge, and the essence of perfection.
As Carl Rogers once said, "If we value independence, if we are disturbed by the growing conformity of knowledge, of values, of attitudes, which our present system induces, then we may wish to set up conditions of learning which make for uniqueness, for self-direction, and for self-initiated learning". I believe just that and hope to introduce it to the Wikipedia community.
I sincerely apologize for my attacks (as you put them) at administrators. To
Newyorkbrad, if you find problem with my username, if I get unblocked, I will be open to
changing my username.
I am a man true to my word, so don't hesitate to unblock me. Thanks,
Hiineedrequestforcomment (
talk)
20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is just further trolling and further harassment, the reasons for which you were blocked in the first place. I've changed the block to disable your ability to troll further here. Find somewhere else to play. If there is an administrator who sees this who is willing, for heaven knows what reason, to unblock this individual, feel free to do so on whatever terms you wish without consulting me. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I am back to pursue my case, not in the form of "trolling and harassment", but in a polite, urbane manner. I ask that you bear with me on this.
From alpha to omega, here is an aperçu.
My work on Wikipedia commenced rather abruptly when I made my
debut using
207.97.213.170. My subsequent edits were along the same line. I was promptly blocked for vandalism. In retrospect, I understand that my edits were definitely not constructive, but I would not construe them as vandalism, as I was just an abecedarian then.
I returned with Hiineedrequestforcomment to " pursue defense of my actions on my previous account". I was quite hostile to Jpgordon and continued to argue my case quite impolitely, insulting other users. After making my only constructive edit, I was blocked for "trolling and harassment". I continued to argue against my block, and my block settings were changed, disabling me from editing at all.
I returned with The Reformed Editor, truly thinking I was reformed. I created my userpage declaring that I was the alternate account of Hiineedrequestforcomment. I made several improvements to Julia Mancuso, Shaun White, Ted Ligety, Purna, Akola city, and 2010 Winter Olympics, but then I started arguing with users about the ranking of the 2010 Winter Olympics medal table. I do admit that my actions were quite inappropriate. Après reading my userpage promulgation, Andrwsc blocked me. I asked him tersely, "Does [my block] mean that all indefinitely-blocked users cannot ever return to Wikipedia to make changes, even if they are helpful?" This prompted him to change the block settings of Hiineedrequestforcomment to allow me to make my offer. Here I am now.
Thanks, Hiineedrequestforcomment ( talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently no one bothered to notify you, feeling that you might have been monitoring the relevant discussion. The relevant portion is reproduced here for your convenience:
So you won't be returning. Best of luck with your future efforts in other venues. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)