Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|See above|decline=A block for serious and extreme aggression is met with a request to unblock displaying serious aggression? Surely that just confirms the block reasoning? Anyway, if that doesn't, I do. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]</font></b> 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|See above|decline=A block for serious and extreme aggression is met with a request to unblock displaying serious aggression? Surely that just confirms the block reasoning? Anyway, if that doesn't, I do. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]</font></b> 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)}} |
||
:[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]], who describes himself on his homepage as a 'Welsh practising homosexual,' is talking patent rubbish here. I didn't even state a reason for the unblock request, so how is that 'a request to unblock displaying serious aggression'?(!). --[[User:Etaonsh|londheart]] 14:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:11, 9 September 2006
Welcome!
Hello Etaonsh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SolarHi, could you explain why you think the Tibetan flag is banned for religious reasons? Thanks, Markyour words 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese Communist Party is clearly in the atheist communist tradition. Why do you waste our time with twaddle? Also, could you give references to support the current Wiki conclusion that said flag is banned 'as a symbol of separatism'? Etaonsh 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Etaonsh 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Markyour words 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
But you are repeatedly censoring the article. Etaonsh 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Dforest 12:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please be more specific, quoting actual examples. Etaonsh 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HenryFlower 12:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Might I ask why you are using a false name - 'Henry Flower' - when your real name is Mark Alexander?
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. HenryFlower 13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Censored by someone not man enough to use his true name, who suppresses the truth, and who hides under a nom de plume - wonderful! And perhaps you'd care to explain to everyone why you've previously deleted my earlier replies to your previous allegations, above? Etaonsh 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Your admin request
You're allowed to nominate yourself directly for adminship (this is called "self-nom"); you don't have to list yourself as a "potential" nomination. But people who vote on admin nominations look for a high level of editing experience (usually several thousand edits) and a good familiarity with Wikipedia practices and policies, that again only comes with quite a bit of experience. They also look at your edit history and interactions with other users fairly closely. So if you were to self-nom right now, since you're relatively new compared with most admin candidates at the time they're nominated, I'd say you'd be very unlikely to get approved on the first try. Your best bet is to keep contributing good edits for a while, try to follow policies like WP:NPOV very scrupulously, avoid conflict with other users, help out with admin-related tasks like checking new contributions (WP:RCP), etc, and maybe apply for adminship later if you're still interested. If you do self-nom and get rejected, don't take it personally. You can try again after a few months but it's considered bad form to try again sooner than that. Regards, Phr 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well it isn't clear from this whether what is being expressed is a personal opinion or a Wikipedia one. I'm inclined to disagree with the advice given on the grounds that, regardless of 'experience of editing Wikipedia,' the fact is that I am repeatedly being blocked by callow, right-wing youths who happen to have got to the administrator position first. It definitely seems wrong to put specialist experience above experience of life, in this instance. How do I 'self-nom,' anyway? - on the 'potential self-nom' page you allege that you have given me instructions, amidst the above, re how to self-nom - I don't see it(?). Etaonsh 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks
In regards to this comment, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you raise the subject of Wikipedia policy, perhaps you would care to explain, then, why the administrator under discussion is allowed to censor a member of Wikipedia's own Counter Vandalism Unit and publicly dismiss the latter, in your own link, as a 'twit'? You are personally attacking me, the underdog, and failing to discipline one of your own administrators who appears bang out of order. This is systemic incompetence and hypocrisy. Etaonsh 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Two wrongs do not make a right. You are welcome to your opinion, but if you do not remain civil in discussions and show respect to other users, you will be blocked again. --InShaneee 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well excuse me, but time is ticking away. I have had an alleged 'personal attack' of my own removed, but that of the administrator in the link still remains, while you pile on the personal attacks here. Explain yourself.Etaonsh 19:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Time is not 'ticking away', nor do I have to explain myself. What happens to the other user will happen. What you need to concern yourself with is your own actions, which were innapropriate. --InShaneee 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My personal attack is no more 'innapropriate' than that of my target - but because he is an administrator, his 'inappropriate behaviour' is tolerated - this is clear for all to see. Don't you Americans have any idea of justice? What do you mean, 'Time is not 'ticking away'? Ask not for whom the tower tipples... Etaonsh 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I mean just that. Your attack is far more innapropriate than what you say was made against you, but that's beside the point. As far as wikipedia is concerned, one personal attack is as bad as the next. As much as you try to change the subject, it does not change the fact of what you did. I'm not going to ask you again to keep your comments civil. --InShaneee 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point - or deliberately ignoring it. The link which began this thread displays an active Wikipedia administrator calling a fellow administrator, and member of the Wikipedia 'Counter Vandalism Unit' (i.e., your own colleague) a 'twit' - simply because his opinion diverges from that of the former. It is not about me in this instance - you have got that wrong. Then I get all this tripe about me & personal attacks. Sort yourselves, guys. Etaonsh 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The block given was for 48 hours on 9th April so should have expired long ago. But for future reference when caught up in a block much shouting, handwaving, complaining about other users bad behaviour etc. etc. Is never a persuasive argument for lifting of a block. --pgk(talk) 17:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not - especially when they're the ones doing it. Etaonsh 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock}} You don't appear to be personally blocked, so you may be caught as collateral damage of another block or an auto-block, the block message gives you the details of your block, we can't see them so you have to give us that detail. --pgk(talk) 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
But I am blocked from this IP address, a PC not used by anyone else. This is the message I get when I try to edit:-
'Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Arwel Parry for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Repeat attack on subject of article; surreptitious editing of external links to point at attack sites" Your IP address is 83.138.136.90.'
I'm not even sure that that is my IP address. Earlier I somehow got a link to the offences referred to, and it would appear that 83.138.136.90 is someone and somewhere else altogether, who has done edits unrecognisable to me. Etaonsh 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[[unblock}} Quite possibly your ISP use proxies, so the IP given maybe that of one of their proxies. Since the IP was blocked sometime ago I have unblocked it, so hopefully you'll be ok now. --pgk(talk) 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, my IP address (for the same PC I have been using all along) is now being given (by Wikipedia) as 212.100.250.208. Etaonsh 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --InShaneee 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This block is sudden, without prior discussion, clearly US POV and political. Wikipedia is young, and falls prey to the underqualified; and the above contribution - 'If you wish to make useful contributions' - is redolent either of a political, personal spite or of a lack of research into the matter. Also, I would still like to be informed as to why the following extemely personal and political attack by an administrator against another user (i.e., other than myself) [1] (More Re: Evaluation of PRC rule) remains undeleted, please? Also, if my alleged offence of the day is, indeed an offence, one has to wonder why my words remain intact on the page(? - unlike in the previous such instance, above).). Etaonsh 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- The prior discussion was above here, several times. You know quite well not to make personal attacks, yet you continue to make them unrepentantly. If you refuse to acknowledge wikipedia policy, eventually, your editing privilage could be revoked indefinitly. --InShaneee 23:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not opposing Wikipedia policy, and you are repeatedly and publicly ignoring my above requests for clarification. Etaonsh 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are violating wikipedia policy, and I didn't understand that you were making any requests. What exactly do you want clarified? --InShaneee 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Simply why the administrator referred to is allowed to call other users 'twit,' if there is a rule against personal attacks - isn't he 'violating wikipedia policy'? Etaonsh 23:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, that wasn't the kindest comment in the world. No, it really isn't all that appropriate. No, this has nothing to do with your behavior. It is still innapropriate, no matter what others may be doing. --InShaneee 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Its connection with my behaviour is that this was the self-same administrator who blocked me previously. Anyway, getting back to my alleged offense du jour, I read a highly political, unsigned comment disguised as a statement of historical fact. Arguably, what I did was to expose it as such - I don't feel that it was 'personal,' as there was no identified person at the end of it, and my response would remain the same whoever said it. Etaonsh 00:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you know who the person is or not; it doesn't even have to be a person, it could be a country, or an ethnic group, or an idea. If you're disrespectful here, that's incivility, period. There's lots of ways to say that you don't agree with that comment that don't involve name calling; I hope in the future you are able to use these alternatives, because if your response really does 'stay the same' in the future, you will only be blocked once again. --InShaneee 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you raise the issues of 'respect' and 'name-calling:' because when we return to the original text at issue, we find my alleged 'target' using the (surely disrespectful?) term 'Commie' disparagingly, first; in which case, on has to ask, whyever would (s)he find 'McCarthyist' or 'prophet' derogatory? No, it is the dispassionate exposée of his/her dishonesty, in fact, which you appear to find intolerable. Etaonsh 00:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I say again, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because another user is being disrespecful does not give you the licence to do the same. You can say what you want, but this is not debatable: you comment is considered a personal attack under wikipedia policy (regardless of what justification or exucuse you think you have), and if you make more comments like it in the future, you will be blocked again. --InShaneee 00:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that 'two wrongs don't make a right.' But whereas 'Commie,' particularly in a derogatory context, is derogatory, 'McCarthyist' is arguably a descriptive label which, as far as I'm aware, is not regarded by everyone today as derogatory - nor am I aware of any complaint to this effect by the person concerned. Etaonsh 00:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- They don't need to complain that it's offensive for it to be considered offensive. Neither does it matter if some people don't consider it degrogotory. The simple fact is that wikipedia dictates that article content be discussed, not editors. --InShaneee 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You'll probably regard this as a wriggle, but the fact is that technically I stayed within those guidelines by not referring directly to the user you (reasonably, but it remains an assumption) assume I was referring to - which, furthermore, incidently, perhaps contributed to his/her difficulty in responding openly - altho (s)he may have secretly complained. My response could, indeed, be regarded as a general, non-personal statement aimed at the consensus - which, indeed it was, incidently. Etaonsh 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep...that's considered wriggle. --InShaneee 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A good enough 'wriggle' to leave my words intact, tho, on this occasion, it would appear. ;) Etaonsh 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, personal attacks are generally not removed from the pages they are made on, as it is easier to let them stand as evidence should the perpetrating user's conduct again be called into question. --InShaneee 01:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Altho they do normally appear to be removed from the final version of the pages in question. ; Etaonsh 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever... :O Etaonsh 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
'Etaonsh's Yahoo! horoscope for today : April 17, 2006 Today you'll do best if you are direct and to the point... Don't hesitate, lie, or exaggerate with people. You might have to deal with someone who is a bit pushy. In handling this aggressive person, it's best to push back! Don't let them dominate or control you. Make it clear that you refuse to be manipulated. If you set some clear boundaries, this person will respect you more!' Etaonsh 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
'Etaonsh's Starsign's horoscope for today, 17 April 2006, provided by Astrology.com:- Quickie: Maturity beckons you today when you feel an urge to take on more responsibility. Overview: You've been turning this situation over and over, and you just can't see a way out. Well, why not heed a friend's advice? He or she may have just the right idea when it comes to a romantic or work dilemma.' Etaonsh 23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed a request for unblocking because no reason was given. Please use {{unblock|reason for unblocking}}. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But the block was already not functioning and the request spoke for itself. Etaonsh 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your vote from a weak keep to a strong keep if the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cultsexpanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What I feel would be lost in NPOV terms is the reality that cults do not, are not always worthy to undergo such a transition. You copy? Etaonsh 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
My starsign's Yahoo! horoscope for today, Sunday 30 April 2006: 'Quickie: A physical expression of your goals will help you focus. Unlock your inner artist. Overview: Your charm and social nature put you in good stead, especially when something difficult needs to be broached. While you love putting your skills to use for a great cause, make sure you're not being overworked on tasks like these.'
Etaonsh 23:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'You gaved no explanation for this revert'
- You gaved no explanation for this revert: [2]. Please don't do that again. Changing the link doesn't automatically change the title of the article. That article you linked to does not exist. The other article is the one under discussion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- That isn't entirely true - the explanation is written in my first contribution below the link/title. I see what you mean about the link not working with the revised version - is there a way round that? Etaonsh 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The "way around it" is to wait until the AfD has finished and it's established whether there will even still be an article, and then if there is a consensus to move the article to a new title, to move it. Repeatedly breaking the link from the AfD to the article under discussion while the AfD is still in progress could start to look like an attempt to sabotage the AfD process; please show good faith by not making any more attempts to alter that link. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- As a member of a small minority trying to salvage the article, it would hardly be in my interests to 'attempt to sabotage' the AfD process (whatever that stands for). I do resent the way Wikipedians gang up and demonise newcomers with these extravagant accusations! Clearly I was trying to improve the original article so that its purport and information value isn't totally vandalised by a mindless, unthinking (or, more likely, POV) majority. Etaonsh 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is something of a discrepancy between protesting that you are being "demonized" with "extravagant accusations" (when you have in fact not once but twice broken the link from the AfD page to the article it discusses) and your own accusations in the very next sentence that a "mindless, unthinking" or "POV" 'majority' is "totally vandalizing" the article. Putting that aside, however, I return to my original request: please stop breaking that link. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- OMG - twice! You seem to be missing the point, that I have stopped 'breaking the link.' Also the Wiki software is frustrating - it says that I can edit the original article, but it appears that I can't edit its title, which, to me, is key to its NPOV survival, as I expressed on the project page, and which you still haven't apologised for disputing and failing to see. Etaonsh 08:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- How is it that you figure you are owed an apology? I warned you that if you continued to break the link, it would look to other editors like an attempt to disrupt. That is the truth; I fail to see how being told the truth is grounds for deserving an apology. If you think you are owed an apology simply because people didn't read your mind and know that your disruptive action was an innocent mistake, then I think you should be preparing your own apology first, towards all the people that you insulted as "mindless" and "unthinking" and accused of "vandalizing" -- not for any disruptive action such as yours, but simply for participating in the AfD process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriately blocked again
'Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by ProhibitOnions for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Reverted Belle Stars to a copyvio previous version" Your IP address is 212.100.250.217.'
- Well your title is incorrect, you haven't personally been blocked. It looks like your ISP uses a proxy system and you hav changed proxy (proabably without knowing), since the address you've given was blocked nearly 24 hours ago yet you've been editting since. I've removed the block so it should all be ok for now. --pgk(talk) 11:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- How can it be appropriate to block me for unknowingly using the same server or connection as a complete stranger in a place unknown to me? Etaonsh 15:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- No one blocked you. They blocked an IP address, they did not know you or anyone else who uses that server, the block was not directed at you etc. etc. This is the way the software works, the block message contains a section entitled "Innocent?" which describes this. --pgk(talk) 18:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have to confess to some ignorance, here. Before I joined Wikipedia I thought an IP address referred to an individual PC, and that this is how (e.g., in police situations) internet security works. Now it appears that internet security doesn't work, that the attempt to locate individual offenders repeatedly results in stray virtual grapeshot.
- There's no particular reason why a PC user should accept a given account of internet security, without knowing it all thru & thru. I was very conscious, myself, that this recent block coincided with my exposure of right-wing political bias on the Tibet page. Coincidence? It would be bad security thinking, from my perspective, to assume that. Etaonsh 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi my friend! I was blocked for questioning the stupid communist article on Tibet and called separatist, vandal and so forth! Well I have to tell you! Wikipedia has been one nasty place to be! Who the hell these people think they are? My spouse is 100% Tibetan! We are members of the Wisconsin Tibetan Association and I have vowed to disbute the article. I want to see a red flag on it because a lot of students use Wikipedia (unfortunatelly) for their school project! Lets unite forces to try to change the article. I have a lot of proof, links, eye witnesses and so forth.
Also I can tell you we can make a list of the admins on Tibet, there is one other guy who is very rude- Ran. I registered with Wikishmedia but I forgot my password. I will reregister and tell you my username later
Hi my friend, I am back again! If you want to work together on correcting the article on Tibet let me know Me 00:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have been away for a while and wasn't aware of your message. I don't think you should believe that all communists are the same. I myself am 100% communist and would like to see a red flag on Tibet for a different reason! Aside from that I think we can at least agree that Wikipedia's neutral/open to all image is in doubt, and that if Communist rule in Tibet falls short of its purported egalitarian agenda, that should be exposed also. Etaonsh 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comment
Though I'm sure I could bring up the relevant guideline/policy/whatever, I'll make it simple. The article talk page is for discussing the article, not the content. Therefore, it is not a source. Furthermore, all content on it is original research, further disqualifying it from inclusion. Simple as that. Don't include it just to prove your point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the uninitiated reading this, 'Your comment' refers to [[4]]. The word 'therefore' is supposed to imply a logical inference, which it scarcely does in this instance above. I'm not 'including it just to prove my point,' but to refer readers to an example of the relevant debate, without which they are left somewhat in the dark (but why worry - after all, Wikipedia is just a game of 'Dungeons & Dragons' to you). As for 'original research,' this seems another arcane Wiki rule which could result in every line of text, every statement having to be 'sourced' - i.e., to contain some outside reference, as if to suggest that the truth of all matters is to be decided by an 'outside reference,' preferably not too closely outside. --Etaonsh 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I don't want to get into some drawn about debate about policy and all that. You don't link to the talk page. It's common practice. The talk page shouldn't be discussing the content, it should be discussing the structure, format, etc of the article. Referring to it as an example isn't proper as its not an outside and confirmable source. Also, you don't need to source everything, just those things that might seem suspicious. Lastly, watch the personal attacks with that Dungeons and Dragons nonsense. Such things get you banned, and while I will not put in the effort to make that happen, someone inevitably will. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that in general we don't link to the Talk page, but in this instance it was made necessary by your censorship and removal to divert of an alternative page [[5]].
- You say 'The talk page shouldn't be discussing the content, it should be discussing the structure, format, etc of the article.' Where did you get that idea from?
- Re 'outside and confirmable': two entirely separate concepts, best kept that way, IMHO.
- You say, 'you don't need to source everything, just those things that might seem suspicious.' That's very subjective. Your own statements here might 'seem suspicious' to some readers, but aren't sourced. I think 'hoist with your own petard ' is the expression.
- Wups! - I forgot - dragons have no sense of humour! --Etaonsh 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- How is that link my censorship? I never editted it. In any case, see WP:TALK. It has a better description than I give. I can see that I'm likely not going to get anywhere with this, so I'll finish with this edit. See WP:CITE and WP:RS, among others for why you should cite some, but not all, statements in an article. Neither you nor I nor have to cite our comments in talk pages because they are simply our point of view. This is not the case with articles. Articles are neutral, thus you cite things. And like I said before, watch the personal attacks, or have you forgotten previous banning? Feel free to make some quip about wiki-gaming because I've linked to four policies. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, before you go tossing about ignorant claims of vandalism, I suggest you learn the meaning of the term. I left the changes alone because I do not wish to edit war with you over your opinion of the debate, which is quite clearly given. That said, your changes can be construed as original research because you site no source for your claims. Who is "some", which traditionalists do you speak of, and where exactly do they make their claims? The article is virtually unreferenced. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- What appalling language!
- No, I don't think I give an opinion, I just describe the reality.
- 'Some' = everyone, before considering the alternative.
- 'The traditionalists' are everywhere, under every stone and toadstool. Why else d'you think we spell this way?
- I'd rather 'go unreferenced' than use language like 'go tossing.' --Etaonsh 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a talk page. I don't have to be formal or entirely correct in how I phrase my statements. Also, thank you for clarifying my questions. I'd suggest adding that to the article (not verbatum, of course) to be more specific. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- You mean the bit about 'toadstools' - it might frighten the kids. --Etaonsh 21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
scary/outdated
You say "Your suggestion that a psychiatrist cannot be 'scary/outdated' from a modern, scientific, consensual perspective is rigid, reactionary, 'PC' and incorrect. It restricts free discussion and accurate representation, and says more about your own lack of involvement in the field than anything else. [6]" That is very good, except you were directing it at a user, MacGyverMagic (Mgm), who is not expected to have any expertise or experience. Fred Bauder 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. The user MacGyverMagic made a very succinct judgement on a very long and rambling debate like he was some sort of ultimate judge on all topics covered = 'speaking first and asking questions afterwards.' I am quite satisfied that the evidence bears this out, again, without your supporting, wrongheaded and peremptory judgement. It is nothing short of arrogant for you and MacGyverMagic to think you can enter into a long, passionate and rambling debate about a deep subject with universal consequences with one judgmental paragraph, no questions, and no diplomacy - how typical of modern America! There is ample evidence from your ID and the corresponding page of at least three reasons why you are unfit to consider yourself impartial in this matter:-
1. Some kind of German provenance (from your surname) when the 'scary, outdated but influential' psychiatrist in question happens to be the German Kraepelin. 2. Political bias. Your ID page clearly attacks the political left. 3. US background: can you really debate effectively with a self-declared communist, or on the subject like evolution, when you cme from a country where these issues are subject to the influence of shrill, extreme and irrational viewpoints? . --londheart 22:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Block
I have blocked you based on your extremely aggressive behavior. There is no point in continuing the arbitration, in my opinion. Fred Bauder 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- So you have been around Wikipedia longer than me and have more power. Big deal. Your contribution and provenance reek of a laughable bias which scarcely needs to be pointed out to the passing observer. To me, aggression is something connected to hatred and bias, which your ID page reeks of. I don't think any normal people reading you are all that surprised or interested in how effectively you have, to date, climbed into a position of power on the somewhat dubious virtual Wikipedian dunghill. There is a real world out here which your influence is best removed from while you play silly power games with your undemocratic, imaginary Wikipedian status. --londheart 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Etaonsh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See above
Decline reason:
A block for serious and extreme aggression is met with a request to unblock displaying serious aggression? Surely that just confirms the block reasoning? Anyway, if that doesn't, I do. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:57, 9 September 2006 (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.