User talk:Classical library

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Classical library, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts at Seraphim Rose[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DivineAlpha 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim Rose disruptive editing and incivility[edit]

At least you have finally had the integrity to edit with a user name. This will make it easier to get you blocked for your repeated and unjustified edit warring and your other constant disruptive editing and incivility. Anglicanus (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who should be concerned about being blocked, considering you have now completely abandoned with your most recent, repeated acts of vandalism any last vestige of the façade of seeking to enforce scrupulous compliance with WP protocol, of which you stand in clear violation through your constant malicious editing and edit warring while slinging insults and threats in a most uncivil manner and refusing to present even the semblance of a refutation of my numerous, substantive arguments against inclusion of said material. As such, you have been duly reported for violation of Wikipedia's 3R rule.Classical library (talk)

Your constant highly offensive incivility alone is sufficient reason to have you blocked for an extended period. If you want to report me then I suggest that you should first have a good read of WP:BOOMERANG. Anglicanus (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant resort to a strategy of gratuitous unilateral editing and malicious edit warring while deliberately avoiding consensus through talk and mediation is an apt demonstration of your bad faith as an editor of the WP article Seraphim Rose. Either seek redress in talk in accordance with established protocol or cease your aggressive editing and harassing messages.Classical library (talk)

ANI report[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to avoid a block for edit warring if you will reply at WP:AN3 and agree to stop reverting until consensus is found at Talk:Seraphim Rose. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is currently being blocked by several ideologically motivated users who've taken to imposing their own preferred revision while embarking on a campaign of threats, insults, frivolous user complaints, gratuitous edit-warring, and other behavior clearly intended to silence and intimidate those who disagree and who also provide clear and cogent reasons for their disagreement in talk (which they refuse to address on any meaningful, critical basis. I cannot see how you look at the thousands of words published in support of the present revision at the article's TALK page and say that I have not sincerely pursued consensus through dialogue on the substantive matters of the dispute. Please look at this matter closely and refrain from taking sides16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You will agree at the WP:AN3 discussion to stop making any additional reverts until consensus is reached, or you will be blocked. If you continue with this battlegorund mentality, you will be blocked for edit warring. I strongly encourage you to agree to accept this offer to avoid a block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting this harsh warning and not the other users constantly reverting without adequate basis, posting snide remarks in talk, and otherwise avoiding any discussion of the substantive issues relating to the dispute and unilaterally enforcing a one sided revision? Producing an argument and citing critical grounds for the conclusions advanced on the basis of that argument is not a "battleground mentality", it is the basic process of reasoned discourse. Please explain what exactly you propose that I do in addition to what I have already done, so as to reach the consensus of which you speak. I have already offered a number of critical considerations for review at talk, none of which have been addressed by any of the users lodging formal complaints against me. I feel strongly that I am being inappropriately sanctioned and that the matter should be examined more closely. You order me to comply and declare in peremptory tone that this matter is "not up for discussion". You sound like a fascist, not a Wikipedia Administrator. Wikipedia should seek to promote reasoned discourse and freedom of expression, not petty censorship and intellectual blackballing.Classical library (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were told twice above what needed to be done - and you chose not to do it. Thus, you are now blocked for 72 hours. When the block expires, you are welcome to continue editing, but any further edit warring will result in longer blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true-- Afterwriting and Anglicanus have engaged in just as many revisions, for ostensibly less justifiable reasons, and both have abused the talk discussion by making harassing posts and attempting to silence discussion on the basis of nothing but hand-waving and snide remarks. Read it for yourself. The fact is that you are a disgraceful little functionary on a petty power trip who obviously has serious problems comprehending critical arguments. You may hide behind your formalized Wiki patois all you like, I have done nothing wrong and this user complaint/ block is clearly malicious in nature. If my arguments make for a "battleground" mentality, then what exactly do you call the catalogue of quibbles, threats, and one line zingers posted by Anglicanus and Afterwriting in response to the critical discussion in talk, which they have utterly ignored while making repeat edits in a spirit of personal antagonism and open disregard of consensus?Classical library (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including your IPs, you broke the 3 revert brightline rule. As other admins have already stated, their comments are problematic - but you violation of WP:3RR was the only violation requiring immediate attention/action. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP change was a result of service change to my home. We switched from Optimum to Verizon. Also, I am a new user and am having difficulty navigating through the various technical aspects of editing and posting at Wikipedia. The block should be removed as a courtesy and the other users should be held accountable for their flagrant violation of the same rule for which I am currently being pilloried. I'm not here to vandalize or to do battle, I'm here to enlighten and to pursue truth in a spirit of vigorous inquiry and commitment to professional standards of publishing and discourse. I must say I am left very disillusioned by this experience, and quite upset. I would have been happy to yield the floor to the other users if they had provided a hint of a compelling refutation of the critical basis I have provided in support of the current revision. At one point, user Anglicanus kept reverting to an old photograph that I had replaced with a better one that showed more of the subject's face. This is indicative of a "crusade" on their part, and not an honest attempt to institute beneficial edits.Classical library (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I kept reverting to the older photograph is simply because, as I explained in my edit summaries, your edit to the info box created formatting mistakes. That is the only reason. I tried to fix these mistakes but couldn't work out how to do so. It had nothing to do with the different photograph which I agree is a better one.

You are not the only one upset by this experience. You have accused me and other editors of pursuing some kind of "gay agenda". I am not gay and I don't have any ideological agenda either for or against Seraphim Rose. I have some interest in him and his writings but I am neither a follower or a critic. I therefore ask you to withdraw this false accusation about me and to apologise for making it. I apologise to you for the comment about sinful actions. It was an inappropriate way of responding to the kinds of accusations you were making towards me and other editors in a language I hoped might move you to stop doing so. Peace, Anglicanus (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such disruptive edits. I was editing without using my regular username because I had not used it in a very long time and had misplaced the password until recently. If it were merely an attempt at concealing my identity, I surely would not have logged into the incident with it in order to respond to a user complaint arising in connection with a generic IP. The block on my account is therefore unwarranted, and based on a misunderstanding. Please therefore remove the block forthwith and without delay.

In order to make a proper unblock request, please see WP:GAB. You should also review WP:NPA, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:NOTTHEM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Namely, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIR to excess. Maybe it's the single-purpose nature of your contributions, but a conflict of interest is not based on ideology or beliefs. You have repeatedly used that guideline erroneously, as a blunt instrument to browbeat any and all opposition or criticism, but ultimately, that isn't a sustainable approach. You are being unrealistic if you think otherwise. The unanimous sentiments expressed in the ANI thread linked above, right here right now, are a testament to that disconnect on your part.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 05:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[U]nsmiling creatures, I gotta remember to use that. Anyway, so you tried browbeating, you tried insults. Yet, somehow you're surprised that it didn't work? That it still isn't working? Bizarre. El_C 12:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]