User talk:MagicMons

A Hypocrite's post[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia's Civility Policy. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are a nasty piece of work. I have asked you repeatedly to not talk to me in template form... Yet you continue to do so? I have asked you repeatedly to consult the talk page on Conference Theory, yet you continue to ignore me? I asked you repeatedly to discontinue to call me a vandal in the revision history of conference theory, yet you continue to do so? What I see here is a catalog of Deceit and Hypocrisy coming from you. This is your last chance, next time I WILL report you for trolling behaviour. MagicMons 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conference Theory, you will be blocked from editing. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Ioeth#Listen here sonny[edit]

No, your edits are disruptive, and they are becoming more so. I have told you multiple times that many of your actions have constituted a violation of official Wikipedia policy. I have also told you that you can ask about any of these policies on my talk page or consult an administrator. In spite of this, you continue to breach policy. Please, there is no need for this to get out of hand. Wikipedia has procedures that must be followed, and actions such as removing AFD templates from the top of articles or blanking AFD discussion pages are clear violations. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally talking to me in non template form. It would have been a lot easier if you had of clearly stated your grievances earlier, but instead you labelled me a troll and assumed terrible faith about me. As for removing the template, I thought that was the natural response since the article is notable and since you hadn't responded accurately to the sources I provided (Which there was four of) Also, I felt a new vote was needed on its deletion due to the fact you ommitted the fact that Village Magazine done an article on it. You continue to troll by not mentioning this yet calling me a vandal. Not only is this incivil, it is libelous and something I really should consider taking legal action over. MagicMons 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that this needs to escalate further, but if you are sure, Wikipedia has a page on dispute resolution which talks about the different ways to get third parties involved, such as mediation and arbitration. If either of those options appeal to you, I'd be more than happy to participate. With regards to the article: once an article for deletion debate (AFD) has been opened, which it has, the template at the top of the page nor the discussion that it links to can not be removed or blanked until closed by an administrator, regardless of whether the article has been updated or not. To do so, especially repeatedly, is genuinely considered vandalism, and not just by me. I'm sorry if that offends you, but the documented procedures for AFD are very clear cut, especially since you've received (and apparently ignored) multiple warnings about that behavior. I tried to assume good faith, however your repeated decision to ignore policy has led me to believe that you're not acting in good faith. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your complaint[edit]

I looked into the problem you asked for help with at the Village Pump. I'm afraid that you're in the wrong here. You aren't allowed to remove the AfD template from an article, or to blank out sections of deletion discussion, even if you think that the article should not be deleted. Ioeth acted correctly in letting you know that you shouldn't do this- yes, deleting necessary templates and sections of deletion debate is indeed vandalism. You may not have intended to vandalize, but when you were corrected, the right thing to do was to learn the policy and not do it again, not attack the editor who was trying to keep the discussion from being disrupted. Your edits are still welcome, even if you have gotten off to a bad start. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your notes to Ioeth, though, definitely were uncivil. Even when we disagree, we do not insult one another. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Due to your incivility, vandalism, and general trolling I have blocked this account. You may appeal the block by the usual means: you can post an {{unblock}} request, or email the Arbitration Committee as described in Wikipedia:Appealing a block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MagicMons (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I posted in the Neo Confederate article was true

Decline reason:

You forgot to include a reliable citation indicating that Neo-Confederates are indeed cunts. This is your responsibility, see WP:V. — Yamla 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Diff for the benefit of the reviewing admin-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]