User talk:198.93.113.49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.--BaronLarf 14:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're in clear violation of the 3-revert limit on the John Byrne page. Notice posted on admin message board. Stop immediately or anticipate formal action, since your violation is deliberate and undeniable. N. Caligon 16:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.--BaronLarf 14:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 3RR violation at John Byrne

You're in clear violation of the 3-revert limit on the John Byrne page. Notice posted on admin message board. Stop immediately or anticipate formal action, since your violation is deliberate and undeniable. N. Caligon 16:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours as a result of a three revert rule violation on the article Roy Lichtenstein. Please do not participate in revert wars when you return. If you have any questions, please respond on this talk page, which remains the only page you are allowed to edit during the period of this block. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 22:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about me, feel free to post it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but you are not allowed to use the talk pages of random users and IP addresses as forums for your complaints. This is your second and last warning on this matter. Gamaliel 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 12 hour block

I am blocking you for 12 hours for disruption of Wikipedia. You have been informed of the proper place to lodge your complaints and you have chosen to disregard this and instead chosen to use unrelated pages as a soapbox. This project is an encyclopedia and these talk pages are a place for discussing that goal, not a message board for posting your complaints on every possible page. Gamaliel 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I'm being blocked for not complaining about you?! Let's be honest here. I've been blocked because I disgreed with some edits that you made on Roy Lichtenstein and Michael Savage.--198.93.113.49 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
If I blocked everybody who disagreed with me there'd be nobody left to edit Wikipedia. The reasons for the block are as stated above and have nothing to do with those two articles or any other. In fact, I will make no edits to those two articles while you are blocked. Gamaliel 18:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You have no grounds for blocking me. You complain that I did not file a grevance against you on the notice board, but I did notfeel I had cause to. I was simply trying to talk to to user on his talk page not yours. I was trying to discuss you revert on Roy Lichtenstein with him. I have every right to do this. I made no personal attack. You have no grounds to block me. You have no grounds for deleting my comment. You are abusing your position of admininstrator. I was wrong to viloate the 3RR rule. I am sorry that I did that. But that is in the past. I am now always obeying the 3RR rule. Those times your blocks were justified. This time it is not.--198.93.113.49 18:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Why would you want to discuss the Roy Lichtenstein article with an anonymous IP user whose only ever edit was to Michael Savage? We won't tolerate users who are here only to troll and stir up dissent wherever they can. If you are here to help construct an encyclopedia, then I will gladly unblock you now if you pledge to stop using the user talk pages of random new users as a forum for your grievances. Gamaliel 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It is not your place to make judgments about the value of my discussions with other editors. I was not trolling. It is not your place to demand pledges from me. And I cannot pledge to stop doing something that I am not doing anyway. You are being dictitorial and unfair. If I have committed a blockable violation i should be blocked as I was for 3RR violations. And I am sorry about that and have been careful not to do it since the last time. But in this case were I have done nothing wrong it is nothing short of tyranical for you to block me. And it only makes it worse that you demand that I pledge not to talk to another editor on his talk page. My post on his page not yours, was not a personal attack and was not trolling and violated no Wikipedia rule. You had no right to block me.--198.93.113.49 18:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad that you are refraining from violating the 3RR again, I only wish you would also tone down the rest of your behavior. You have done little but troll over the last couple weeks, like starting an edit war at John Byrne and then accusing other editors of being sockpuppets, or complaining that I removed a useless comment by an anon calling other people "idiots" from Talk:Rob Liefeld. I suspect that at least some part of you wishes to be a positive contributor, but for that to happen you have to cease being such a disruptive presence. Gamaliel 18:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You cannot justify this by the John Byrne incident. I was already blocked for my 3RR violation there. I am sorry for that and have not caused any more trouble on John Byrne nor will I. You canot use a passed violation that has not beem repeated to justify blocking me now. What you suspect about my wishes is irreleveant. You simply declare me disruptive and block me under the pretense that my post on someone elses talk page (not yours) is not allowed. My comments on his page violated no rule and were completely approriate. For being disruptive in the past on John Byrne I am sorry, but this is now and you should not use that as an excuse to block me now. You are being very unfair to me. I've made some mistakes on Wikipedia, but I've never done anything so unfair as to prevent someone from contributing for no reason at all. I hope you'll tjink about that.--198.93.113.49 18:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Your past behavior on John Byrne is part of a pattern of trollish behavior that, despite your professed apology for the 3RR violations, shows no sign of letting up and every sign of intensifying. When you show that you are willing and able to collaborate in a mature manner with other editors, you will find that administrators will be less likely to block you when you cross the line. Gamaliel 18:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
That is a lie. I violated the 3RR rule more than once it is true, but I ahve stopped as my edit history deomstrates. And my last 3RR rule was an accident. My fourth revert was just under 24 hours. Yes I do revert edits sometime, but no more than you. You contributions page is full of reverts on many pages and often multiple reverts within hours. Does this make you a troll? If not why does it make me troll? You banned me for a comment on another users talk page that violated no rule, but now you say I was banned for being a troll. Neither of this claims is true and neither can be justified. And I am not talking about any admin but you. Another admin did block me for a 3RR violation, but he was correct do so and I am not comlpaing. You are the admin who is being unfair to me, and it is my not responsibility to prove anything to you. You cannot block me simply because you do not feel I have proved myself to you. If I have committed a blockable violation I should be blocked, but I have not do so in this instance. Your waffling about exactly why I was blocked is another demonstration that you have no reason to do it. You are being very unfair and are violating the spirit of colllaboration by blocking me without cause.--198.93.113.49 18:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Just because you are unwilling to understand does not mean that there is any waffling going on. The reasons for your block are unchanged and have been clearly and repeatedly stated. They have nothing to do with reverts and everything to do with your pattern of trolling and trollish behavior. It is ironic that you invoke the "spirit of collaboration" as you have shown nothing but disdain for that spirit through your behavior over the last several weeks. Gamaliel 19:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you even know why you blocked me? I do not understand then please tell me. I have done nothing wrong. Originally you said it was because of my editing another users talk page (not yours), but since I have every right to discuss the Roy Lichtenstein situation with that editor and since I did not make any personal attack you have no reason to block me for that so you spent a great deal of time pointing out that I've made some mistakes in the past by the way I handled the John Byrne edit war, but that has nothing to do with this. And I am sorry about the way I hadnled the John Byrne situation. You keep calling be a troll, but I'm not and you have not offered any reason to think that I am, and now you simply say that it's clear why I was blocked?! Well it is not clear. The only thing that is clear is that you have no right to do it. You were the one who brought up the spririt of collaboartino. I was pointing out that your behavior violates this spirit to deomstrate the irony of your comment.--198.93.113.49 19:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly and clearly stated, the talk pages of random new users are not forums for your grievances. You have been warned repeatedly about this and have ignored those warnings. You have been blocked for this. This is part of your pattern of disruptive behavior which you have exhibited over the last several weeks. I don't see how this can be any clearer. Gamaliel 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I have every right to discuss the Roy Lichtenstein situation with other users. It is tyrnaical of you to think otherwise. There was nothing "random" about what I posted. It was not a personal attack. It violated no wikipedia policy. Your warning is irrelevant. You cannot make up rules and then block me for violating your warnings about them.--198.93.113.49 19:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your trolling on Talk:Rob Liefeld

Get this straight: Wikipedia is not your personal message board. You are not entitled to post your complaints anywhere you want. The sole purpose for an article talk page is for productive discussion of the content of that article. It is not the place for comments like These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article and wikipedia=censorship from you or anyone else. Those useless comments do not add anything to the productive discussion of an encyclopedia article, nor does a long discussion of the worth of comments like those contribute anything of worth to the article. You have recieved clear, repeated warnings from both User:Francs2000 and myself about your behavior on that page. For the last and final time, keep your comments on the topic of the article and nothing else. I will not allow you to make Talk:Rob Liefeld your personal soapbox nor will I allow you to continue to waste my time and the time of the productive editors there actually trying to improve the article. If you actually wish to be a productive, contributing editor, I suggest you start acting like one. Your lack of positive contributions combined with your constant trolling over the last several weeks makes me think more and more that a permanent ban on this IP as a troll account is warranted. Gamaliel 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to leave Gamaliel's rant here for now so people can see how he's acting toward me. Here are links to the edits I made on Talk:Rob Liefeld which Gamaliel deleted [1] [2] [3] (the last two are seperate incidents, Gamaliel deleted it twice). I encourage everyone to look at them and see for themselves that they are perfectly reasonable and that Gamaliel had no business deleting them or threatening me over any of them.--198.93.113.49 13:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my talk page

For the second time, stay out of discussions on my user talk page that are unrelated to you. You don't know (or I suspect care) about this history of insults, attacks, and sockpuppetry at Joe Scarborough, including one person who pretended to be Scarborough himself, and until you educate yourself about that history you aren't in a position to comment on that subject. It's also very tacky of you to follow me around from article to article poking a stick into preexisiting conflicts you have no stake in simply to attempt to antagonize me. Gamaliel 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the editing of Joe Scarborough on Gamaliel's page. And since I am a part of this situation I contributed to the conversation, but once again Gamaliel deletes any contributions to discussions that I make that do not meet his approval and yet he has no problem coming her and making baseless accusations against me. Here's the comment I made that Gamaliel found so horrible he had to delete it.[4]--198.93.113.49 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

==RFC Against Gamaliel]]

You might want to comment on this: [5]

[edit] Gamaliel is deleting my comments yet again

[6] [7] [8] [9] Gamaliel also deleted my RfC for the John Byrne article.--198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted your RfC post because you placed it incorrectly. There is already an RfC in the correct area. Gamaliel 17:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I placed it incorrectly, but you could have simply moved it. There was not an RfC anywhere when I posted mine.--198.93.113.49 17:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
When I noticed yours I had already posted an RfC in the correct section. There was no reason to move it at that point. Gamaliel 17:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:John Byrne

Oh, it's you again. I had no idea. Look, we're treading on serious ground here with Byrne threatening libel suits and we have a lot of work to do to put the article back together. Help, or stay out of it, but do not use the talk page as a forum to insult Byrne. I'm not going to put up with your crap here. Gamaliel 16:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's you again. I had no idea.

Not likely since you still have your little anti-me shrine[10]

Whatever. I'll make it simple. Insert the "bitter old man" comment one more time, you get blocked. Gamaliel 16:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Eventually your abuse of adminstative power will catch up with you. And then what will you have?--198.93.113.49 17:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
A well earned rest. Gamaliel 17:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)