HistoryAddict2000
Wikipedia would otherwise be a good website if it were not full of asshole moderators, and other assholes too.
There are many types of people on Wikipedia:
The Vandals - people who wreck articles as a joke or something along the lines of humour.
The Assholes - people who remove your recent edits even if you were right for stupid reasons.
The Editors - people who edit and expand Wikipedia.
The Human Bots - not sure how but they always seem to revert vandalism 2 seconds after it is posted, but are still human.
The Micro-managers - people who read through an entire article looking for any spelling mistakes.
The Cool Guys - people who cite your material if it has no source and try to prevent your edits from getting removed.
Recent comment on Wdchk's talk page
editYou recently posted a comment on my talk page which contained disparaging remarks about other editors. I don't currently have any opinion on the content of the Hunnic language article. What I do know is that Wikipedia has policies on Dispute resolution and No personal attacks. Maybe it's not too late for you to study those policies and follow them. Meanwhile, please don't try to pass off your user page as an alternative version of the article; that would be an unacceptable content fork. Finally, please sign your posts on talk pages. And why would I say all this? Because I like to nag? Because I'm an "asshole"? Well, no. My thinking is that, if you want the Wikipedia community to take your contributions seriously, it would be best to make an effort to respect its policies and guidelines. Otherwise, pardon my bluntness, you may as well not be here. – Wdchk (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Listen here, they were the ones who started it with idiotic comments about how my sources were 'unreliable'. I expanded that article from
- a crappy 3 word vocabulary to around 50 words and verbs and verb present tense conjugations and how to say 'to be able to' thank you very :much. These people do not belong on Wikipedia, not me, so go and tell them about their stupidity. They think they know everything just :because they made one good edit and reverse 'vandalism'. My user page is better than the actual article so people should shut the hell up :about it and accept I'm right. Are you happy I've signed it, because even if you don't it still says who wrote it. – HistoryAddict2000 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia has no moderators. It does have Admins, like me, and ordinary editors like you and Wdchk. I've replace the noindex template on your userpage. It was ok to remove the other template and add what you did, but you can't remove the noindex template. And once again if you continue to attack other editors you will end up blocked. That will be because of your actions, you can't blame anyone else if that happens. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- HOW AM I ATTACKING OTHER EDITORS ANYMORE?? I am hardly doing that at all. I know it has admins and no moderators, but I call them moderators. I am not attacking people anymore okay? – HistoryAddict2000 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Guidelines for being a good editor
editWriting here as one of our most experienced editors, not an Administrator. 1. Play nicely with others. Don't attack them, don't use ALL CAPS, WP:Assume good faith. After over 8 years and over 125,000 edits, I still have a lot to learn. 2. Read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and tell me why your edits are being reverted. Dougweller (talk)
- DON'T BLOCK ME I AM RIGHT AND I FUCKING KNOW IT. BLOCK THAT ASSHOLE KANSAS BEAR OR SOMETHING. JUST LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. NO I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO LEARN, YOU HAVE A LOT TO LEARN BECAUSE YOU DON'T LEARN AT ALL. I NEVER KNEW WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF SUCH CRETINOUS FUCKING TWATS LIKE YOURSELF. UNBLOCK ME NOW, I DID NOTHING WRONG. UNBLOCK ME NOW, RIGHT NOW YOU FUCKING BASTARD. I HAVE ALREADY LEARNT A LOT AND YOU KNOW NOTHING.
Use the unblock template below. You were blocked for [1]. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)DEAR ASSHOLES
editHistoryAddict2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
People have been insulting me on Wikipedia by reverted all of my edits without discussing it first. I take this as an insult, why should they do this, my edits were perfectly constructive? I attacked them to show them what it feels like. Why are they not getting banned or whatever for doing this for no reason?
Decline reason:
This is sufficient to justify preventing you from editing on Wikipedia, forever; you're lucky it's just 72 hours. When your block expires, you'll need to tone it down a lot, or your return will be brief. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:50, 5 August 2014 (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.
HistoryAddict2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
STOP FUCKING WITH ME THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT UNBLOCK ME I DID NOTHING WRONG I AM AGAINST IGNORANCE, IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG IN THAT? UNBLOCK ME NOW
Decline reason:
The post-block tirades on this page, plus a review of your history, have served to convince me that Wikipedia is, on balance, a better place without your input. I have therefore extended this block to indefinite - you can be unblocked when you demonstrate that you are able to edit in a communal environment. Please think very carefully before filing your next unblock request, because I'm a whisker away from revoking your access to this page as well. Yunshui 雲水 14:55, 5 August 2014 (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.
HistoryAddict2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
YOU BASTARDS. WIKIPEDIA IS A MUCH BETTER PLACE WITH ME, I HAVE PROVEN I CAN EDIT PROPERLY UNBLOCK ME, WIKIPEDIA WOULD BE MUCH BETTER WITHOUT YOU ASSHOLE ADMINS WHO ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH
Decline reason:
Insulting tirades are not appropriate. Access to this page is now closed to you. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:23, 5 August 2014 (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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.