User talk:Meateater

Who the hell do you think you are? (!)

Who do you think you are accusing me of making a personal attack?

I have not made any kind of personal attack and your stupid last warning is pathetic and childish, i demand to know why you have deciced to stick your nose into something you have got no clue about and threaten me with blocked?

The user Madchester some some strange reason declared publicly that i had made a personal attack on someone and he must be bloody god or something because it seems that in the dictatorship that is wikipedia i have no ability to defend my self or my reputation. And now you step in threatening to block me!!!!

If you could be bothered to read what i had written you would clearly see that i made no personal attack whatsoever and nothing i wrote goes against the defenition that is layed out by Wikipedia for a personal attack and actually the user Madchester has not followed the wikipedia guidlines for dealing with a suspected personal attack.

I wrote "It is pretty obvious to anyone with any size brain that....." now this statement is

A - a common phrase meaning the same thing as "does not take a genius to work it out"

B - was not directed at anyone in particular

C - was only written to highlight the fact that something was obvious and was not in reply to any other post on the talk page.

So please explain to me why this was deemed to be a personal attack and why the user Madchester decided to publicly accuse me of making a personal attack and why you have jumped on board with a final warning and why on a democratic website like wikipedia we have some jumped up little soldiers making random accusations and threats with no way for me to defend myself.

I want an apology from user: Madchester on the same talk page that i was accused, you have picked the wrong person to annoy here, i am sure there must be somewhere i can escalate my complaint before you block me so please expect me to be doing this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, this child also denied incivility as well! Meateater 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with personal attacks....

Responding to personal attacks

Initial options

Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation is often better received. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior.

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.

Not once did user: Madchester follow these guidlines.58.167.213.128 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yawn, fed up with you, anyway, you are blocked for 24 hours. Good. Meateater 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Helpme request

{{helpme}}

Some HTML tags are allowed, though most are not. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page for what's accepted in terms of both HTML & wiki-markup. KTC 16:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

user:145.19.1.221

You have just posted a message on this IP user's talkpage, saying that he is going to be blocked after numerous warnings. Please do not do this.

The user in question has made one edit, admittedly clearly vandalism, in the past four months, and has received no recent warnings at all except for yours. Blocking policy clearly states that users may be blocked after repeated, recent vandalism and repeated, recent warnings, with the last episode of vandalism occurring after the last warning; none of these factors apply here.

You can, where circumstances warrant it, announce to a user that he will be referred to an admin for consideration of blocking; to tell him that he will be blocked, a procedure which you yourself cannot do, is inappropriate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points; firstly, there is no reason to assume that the user making the recent edit is the same person as the one making the edits earlier this year, as many IPs are regularly re-assigned by their ISP; and secondly, in any case, my comments relating to timing of vandalisms and warnings remains true. Please use an appropriate cascading series of warnings, as making an immediate threat of blockade which may not then be done encourages vandals to believe that they can get away with it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another helpme request...

{{helpme}}

You can read about the selection process here: WP:ARBCOM#Selection_process Hope this helps! :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Autoblock

I'm sorry that a block I made autoblocked you. I didn't mean to, but my blocking a more problematic user, probably either Zzuuzzisgay (attack username) or Mascheranothegeneral (vandalism-only account), must have hit you. I'm afraid this was an inconvenience for you I could not forsee - but you have my sincere apologies for the annoyance. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)

Not at all. I remember being autoblocked for long periods of time before softblocking of IP addresses was enabled, and can thus understand your frustration. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)

Block Messages

I notice that in the case of user:dummmmmmy, who I username blocked, you took it upon yourself to change my message to an {{indefblock}} message. Please be advised that placing of block templates, under any cicumtances, by users not qualified to administer blocks is discouraged, and changing a block template applied by an admin to a different (and incidentally in this case incorrect) template is verging on vandalism. Please do not do this again. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I will not vandalise this wiki.--Arceus fan 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

Please be more careful in selecting articles to tag for speedy deletion and in explaining the reasons they should be deleted. I have just had to decline two of your suggested deletions because the reason for deletion you provided either did not make sense or was clearly incorrect. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 11:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Why do I keep on recieving messages for "Tiffin Boys School", which is located in Kingston Apon Thames, but I am in London? - User:Meateater

What do you mean by "receiving messages"? Can you provide a link? Please restore the template when you reply, so we know to check back. Thanks--Werdan7^{T @} 01:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Response: I keep getting linked to their IP's Talkpage - User:Meateater

I assume you mean the orange "new messages" box keeps linking you there - if this is the case, make sure you're logged in, as the new messages bar should only link you to your user talk page. Chances are, someone from your IP address is vandalizing that article and is receiving the warnings, but you're seeing them before you get completely logged in. If this is not the situation, then please describe in full detail below what happens and add a new {{helpme}} tag. It may be best to type your response outside of the template so that it is easier to read. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why that's happening. Which IP address is this? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Glad you got everything working right. Happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User: 58.167.213.128

Please stop your victimisation of user:58.167.213.128 now.

There was no need to put a block on someone editing their own talk page without giving them the opportunity to realise their mistake first, this is not how you should treat new users of wikipedia. You amongst others have abused your position of admin to gang up on a new user and have been a major contributer to escalating a minor issue into a major squabble. Please address this issue now and arrange the the user: 58.167.213.128 talk page to be editable.

Thanks Mr Creasy 08:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, I want to do the right thing in Wikipedia, so would like to follow your example if that is okay? being an experienced admin i though i could learn much from you.

I noticed you cut and pasted some comments i made on my talk page to prove how uncivil i had been, that is an excellent idea, hope you do not mind if i use it?

"Shut the fuck up. Meateater 16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)" - i cannot believe you never got blocked from editing for that one!!!

WP:CIVIL

You may be right in telling user:Mr Creasy that he has no right to tell you what to do in wikipedia, although on the same basis you have no right to tell him. But I am telling you that on the next disruptive, uncivil or offensive edit made by you, wherever you make it, I WILL block you from editing. This is an encyclopedia, in which editors write articles. Could I please ask you just to do that? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am going to follow up on this. It seems you are following Mr. Creasy around. He indeed got blocked as an IP for incivility, but that does not mean that, under the current account, you should give him warning after warning before he is even able to edit (especially when users ask for that). I regard your latest edits as incivil, just as Anthony says above, and you are victimising an editor, even before giving him a chance. You could have offered help instead of that. If I see you issue warnings or complaining to editors without an actual reason why you should issue that warning, or are in any other way insisting on warning users for their past behaviour (especially after a served block), or defending this behaviour, you will be blocked. Please give people a second chance, especially when they ask for that! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He is not a sockpuppet, he simply initially edited as an IP (during which he got blocked, yes). And if you just write articles, and otherwise behave as a normal editor, then it is unlikely that we will co-incide. If you edit in a disruptive fashion, however, it is highly likely. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 06:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In the sense in which I use it, please take the word "normal" to equate to the word "usual", if you find the first word insulting - it was not meant to be. My point is that most new, or fairly new editors spend much or most of their time writing or editing articles. Of your last 100 edits, only 10 are to mainspace articles, and this is unusual. OK? Please, don't go following other editors around; please, don't spend so much time on other users' pages; please, don't spend all of your time trying to do admin tasks for which you are not equipped; please, just write or edit articles. And then we can cease to interact, which I am certain we both want. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me

I just made my Userpage redirect to my talkpage by mistake, how do I undo it?

I've reverted the change for you, if you have any other problems, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Regards -RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 11:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Userspace pages

Please refrain from making threats such as currently exist at User:Meateater/This is my userspace, and not yours, so go away. and User talk:Meateater/Sandbox. I trust that these comments were meant humorously, but they are not appropriate, and I would request that you remove them and not make any similar comments again. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my userspace, so no, I will not remove them. Meateater 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted them under speedy criteria G10 (Attack pages). I might mention that while we give great latitude to user pages, they are not "yours". - jc37 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You have made an error

The sandbox was me testing signitures, please revert your delete. Meateater 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume "testing signatures" shouldn't require the content shown. Is there some other reason? - jc37 09:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes

Well, there is:
A) What I put on MY sandbox, is of no concern to anyone else but myself.
B) Why am I not allowed a Sandbox, whilst other users are?
C) Why did you not consult me before deleting the page? Because if you did, you would have found out that I was going to put the "This page is kept because it is humourous" template on it. Meateater 09:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I demand the answers to these questions. Meateater 09:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I might suggest that take a moment to read over Wikipedia:User page. (Added some relevant links below.)

• A.) It's not "Your" sandbox, and Inappropriate content may be removed by any user.
• B.) You are, of course, welcome to recreate the sandbox sub-page (as I see you have).
• C.) If humour it was, such was inappropriate, as User:Newyorkbrad pointed out above.

And finally, you may find in the future when dealing with other editors that being "demanding" may be not be as helpful a stance as you might wish it to be.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

My userspace, My choice of what goes in it, I don't care what wikipedia policy states, If it has "Meateater" infront of it, It is mine. I will demand anything I like, I will also treat other editors like dirt, if I want to. Meateater 11:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• "I don't care what wikipedia policy states..." - Care or not, if you edit here, you will need to abide by Wikipedia's policies, or you will be helped to not edit here.

The rest of your comments fall under WP:CIVIL.

As I go through your edit history, it seems clear to me that such comments are nothing new, and have resulted in you being blocked in the past. You may wish to rethink your stance, else in the future you may be indefinitely blocked until you agree to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - jc37 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice one

I don't actually care if you block me, no really, I can easily come back again, and the best bit is, you won't even know who I am, so you won't be able to stop me! I am Never intimedated by blocks, Now, I am bored with this little exchange, so make your response, and leave me alone. Meateater 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well, you're indefinitely blocked until such time as you can convince someone that you'll abide by Wikipedian policies and guidelines. - jc37 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Fair enough, I will follow wikipedia policy

Decline reason:

Not convincing. — Yamla 16:23, 27 September 2007 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The blocking admin stated in his message, that I may be blocked indefinatly unless I agreed to follow Wikipedia policy, so, I agree to follow Wikipedia policy, and I am sorry for my errors.

Decline reason:

Since when is a DOS attack following WP policy? — Kbdank71 17:15, 27 September 2007 (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.

Actually, the exact quote is, "you're indefinitely blocked until such time as you can convince someone that you'll abide by Wikipedian policies and guidelines." --Yamla 16:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This sure won't convince anybody that you're going to follow the rules. NawlinWiki 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)