User talk:Urek
First off[edit]
| Welcome!
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
Best of luck to you, and happy editing! Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
Yes and no? They were blocked for vandalizing pages, and those blocks tend to stick. Anon vandals blanking their talk pages is pretty frequent, usually doesn't get them anywhere. I'm a bit curious why you're taking an interest, but in the pursuit of good faith, and in the interest of encouraging new users, I'll unprotect the page for now. Luna Santin 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :) Good call. I'll look forward to seeing you around. Luna Santin 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Page protection[edit]
I protected Mongo's talk page because of perisitent harassment. You can ask that it be unprotected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Tom Harrison Talk 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop posting to my talk page[edit]
You are to stop trolling my talk page or I'll block you...got it? Buzz off.--MONGO 05:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but your rudeness is both uncalled for and in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies. As an administrator I would expect you to adhere to a higher standard than most users, but your comment to me doesn't even adhere to the standards most users are expected to follow. If you don't want to discuss the fact that your talk page is semi-protected, that is fine, I won't bring it up with you, but acting rude and violating WP:AGF is completely and totally uncalled for. Urek 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- You can read...I know a troll when I see one...so buzz of.--MONGO 05:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are forcing me to take this issue up with others. Your insults against me are both baseless and uncalled for. Urek 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This is now being discussed at the administrators notice board due to Mongo's violation of WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, and numerous other policies. Urek 06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Post mediation request[edit]
Ok, you've requested mediation. In the interim, if you post to MONGO's user page again I will be blocking you for disruption. My suggestion to stay off the noticeboard remains only a polite suggestion. - brenneman {L} 06:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Threatening to block me is a ridiculous and uncalled for act. I've not posted to MONGO's page since he made it clear to me he was not open to solving this problem with out getting others involved, which is why I took things to the noticeboard. I would request you refrain from making threats as I don't think it reflects well on you.
- If I have misconstrued your comment, my apologies. It is often hard to tell the true meaning behind e-mail and similar communications, and I hope you understand if I am a bit edgy right now, having been verbally bashed by MONGO repeatedly tonight. I will continue to respond as I see fit on the noticeboard, though will avoid posting if it is unessecary. I do feel required to defend myself from his attacks, however. Urek 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have indeed misconstrued some of my intent, but that's ok. As you said this is a difficult medium for over-heated exchange.
- In informing you of my intentions with regard to MONGO's user page I am indicating to you that your actions are disruptive at this point. It's not a threat. If it has the added bonus of indicating to MONGO that I take his position seriously that's a, err, bonus.
- In "defending yourself" you are also contributing to disruption. The facts are alrady laid out, esy to examine in history. No further exchange of vitrol is required. Let it be handled.
- You've suggested that you're keen to learn how things operate around here. Knowing when to let others handle things is a crucial aspect of working here.
- No one should feel that they need to do anything on their own.
- If in some circumstance you're the only editor doing something, think twice about doing it.
- So steady on mate. Fing something else to do. New page partol is a good start, try that and ignore all this for a little while, ok?
- brenneman {L} 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have indeed misconstrued some of my intent, but that's ok. As you said this is a difficult medium for over-heated exchange.
- Agreed, on one condition. You indicate how on earth you can possibly accuse me of "disruption". I find that highly offensive and uncalled for. I don't see how attempting to engage someone in discourse, politely I might add, is ever disruptive. The other individual is free to politely decline. MONGO chose to make a disruption by declining in an extremely rude manner. I've not been incivil in the least in my dealings with anyone on this project. Urek 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can see how that's confusing. Why aren't I "threatening" to block MONGO, for instance? It's complicated, and slightly unfair, but pragmatic. You're very new.
- MONGO has made some observations about your quick proficiency. I don't think that these facts are in question.
- One explanation is that, just as you've said, you're a careful student.
- Another explanation is that you're an experianced user, returning is the guise of someone "new."
- At this stage, however, there is no evidence to support either one or the other of these.
- MONGO has asked you to leave him alone, whatever you may think of his manner.
- You haven't done that.
- This could be a good-faith insisntance in over communication. I do it all the bloody time.
- This could also be a bad faith attempt to get a rise out of someone who has had their share of controversy.
- Again, no way for us to know which.
When someone asks you to do something, try to take them seriously. Even if they ask badly. Mostly when people say "leave me alone" saying "why why why" doesn't help.
brenneman {L} 07:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Except that I did leave them alone, I simply mentioned to him that his rudeness was uncalled for as a final parting comment. When he responded again with rudeness, I respected his request and instead took it to the notice board to seek mediation, as it is obvious some is needed in this case. Problems don't go away when you ignore them, and there is a very serious problem here. As to an explanation for my "proficency", I don't see how I have demonstrated anything out of the ordinary, I have in fact restricted my editing to a single article, where I have helped to clean things up, spending the rest of my time watching edits and reading articles.
- I believe wikipedia itself states quite clearly that we must all WP:AGF and obey [[WP:BITE]. I don't see how this is being followed here at all. I've not been disruptive in the least, in fact I've been instrumental in helping to resolve NPOV issues in a major article. Urek 07:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Block[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by disruption, trolling, abuse. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. You ask us to believe you are a new user, but you wade right in to the admin noticeboard vigorously trolling and harassing User:MONGO? That's stretching our credulity beyond breaking point. Guy 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am neither trolling nor harassing MONGO. I have a serious issue with him because he has been harassing me repeatedly. I went to the noticeboard seeking mediation with him, which I am still seeking and he continued to harass me there. This block seems to be another form of further harassment, and I don't see how it is in alignment with Wikipedia policy at all. I have never breached civility, nor engaged in the behavior MONGO has towards me. I demand this block be removed immediately. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for administrators to abuse new users. I have been faithfully editing the article Rainbow Gathering, and I demand immediately that this injustice be rectified.
- I have complied with 100% of administrator requests, and have left his talk page alone the instant I was asked to. This is an outrage and serious abuse. Urek 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|I have not violated Wikipedia policy, trolled, or done anything I have been accused of. I have complied 100% with the requests of administrators. I believe this block to be wholely unjustified.|decline=I do not believe you are here to help write an encyclopedia. -- [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)}}
- You're unblocked. However, due to the intense scrutiny you've received, any additional commentary on either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be disruptive regardles of how appropiate it is.
- * This is grotesquely unfair, yes. It creates a forum in which you cannot defend your self, yes. It will drive you round the twist, yes.
- * This is just how it is. If you're in the right, others will ensure that you don't need defending. Don't watch the proceedings.
- I suggest you take all pages in wikipedia space off your watchlist for a while. Go do article stuff. It's more fun anyway.
- brenneman {L} 03:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
AND if you tried to edit at all while you wre blocked you'll get the message that you are still blocked. Just be paitent and use the same template from before. And if someone says anything that you feel is rude or even just false or innacurate, just ignore it. Totally. The most damning response you can make to incivility is an excellent couple of article edits. - brenneman {L} 04:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
However[edit]
While the misunderstanding here was apparent to me, it should be spelled out: MONGO was not talking about you. He was involved in some intersting times with respect to another website recently, and is feeling war-weary with good reason.
- From your point of view, he was still giving it to you with both barrels, and you just gave it back.
- From his point of view, it was all over and then you started it up again.
brenneman {L} 04:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Ç
Your edit to "Heroes"[edit]
Hello. Your edit to Heroes (TV series) was deemed inappropriate. Please note that the fictional character DL Hawkins has been indicated in press releases and during the actual program. He is to appear in episode five and all information about him is true. Please be more thoughtful when editting. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- This should really have gone on the talk page of the article, shouldn't it? Please also see my comments at User_talk:Ace_Class_Shadow#A few bits of unsolicited advice - brenneman {L} 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ping![edit]
Just a brief reply so that you get the orange bar of joy: Good that you came back. - brenneman {L} 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)