User talk:Whether There's Weather Underground

Welcome!

Hello, Whether There's Weather Underground, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

A suggestion of calm

Look, I understand that you're a new editor, and I appreciate the energy you're bringing to your efforts. However, as with most new editors, your strategy could use a little work. At the top of the Prop 8 talk page (and most talk pages), you'll find links for such things as Be polite, Assume good faith, and No personal attacks. These aren't just there to make the whole world gumdrops and rainbows, they're also there because they make good strategy. The guy in a crowd who is pointing at everyone else saying "she's lying, he's not a native, he's lying, she's lying, and he's shouting" is not apt to be seen as reasonable and taken seriously. If you review the material at those links and ease up in your personal style, you'll likely find that what you're trying to say will be given more consideration, rather than being overlooked by people reacting to your tone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 - caution

I believe you've been warned several times not to keep reopening a discussion closed by consensus, and on WP:BLP grounds. You have violated the policy WP:3RR in doing so. A number of editors have explained to you why the content you are proposing is unsuitable for the article in question, and for the encyclopedia. I am leaving this rather than filing an administrative report only because you do not appear to have been adequately warned. But if you continue, I or someone else will likely request help from an administrator, and under the circumstances your account may be blocked, possibly indefinitely, to prevent further disruption. If you do wish to continue editing Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you widen you begin to explore the policies mentioned in the welcome message above, and broaden your interests to include productive, collaborative editing rather than picking fights on politically-charged topics. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continued[1] after the above warning, so I have filed a report at WP:AN/EW. Feel free to comment there. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008). 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (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).

Whether There's Weather Underground (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please remove this. I am getting pretty tired of people playing games and trying to abuse the rules to stop an open and honest debate on the merits of proposed changes to an article from occurring. Dead-of-the-night, dishonest "closings" and ridiculous misstatements of the policies they link to do not help anything

Decline reason:

Edit-warring is a pretty brutal abuse of the rules, no matter what the reason. We have something called WP:BRD, and Wikipedia is never to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. There are many forums for dispute resolution and single handed reverts merely serve to lower the effectiveness of your arguments. You need thie time to re-read Wikipedia's policies before returning to editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 13 August 2010 (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.

(Note to the reviewing admin, please see the context at WP:AN/EW. --Chris (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (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).

Whether There's Weather Underground (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See below.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, blaming others will not get your block lifted early. Please review this guide and revise your request. TN X Man 17:41, 13 August 2010 (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.

This is CLEARLY RIDICULOUS. I didn't make any edits to the page, instead I tried to discuss, and instead of an honest discussion, I get threatened at and lied about by people trying to SHUT DOWN A TALK PAGE.

I tried to offer compromises. The liars aren't even interested in a discussion so they keep trying to shut down any talk of a possible edit. This is CLEARLY WP:OWN behavior on their part.

I am disgusted right now at the behavior I am seeing on here.

I also note that the liar Wikidemon called me a "SPA" after his outright refusal to respond to a point I made on the Bill Ayers page. [2] I think he's just targeting me to be abusive because I am new here, opposed his false claim of a consensus along with others, and he thinks I'm an easy target to make an "example" of for his WP:OWNership of that page. He certainly shows up reverting constantly on it.

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).

Whether There's Weather Underground (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Decline reason:

I think that this question has been answered below by Active Banana. You may well hold strong views about a subject, but persistently posting them, in contavention of wikipedia policies and even on a talk page, is disruptive and is edit-warring. When your block expires I ask you, quite seriously, not to go back to making the same edits; you have no consensus and repeated blocks customarily become longer. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:14, 13 August 2010 (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.

I have shown you where policy was incorrectly applied. I can point out quite clearly where they are misstating the policies at least as written, unless there are "unwritten rules" you use just to beat people up because you get some sick sexual thrill from doing so.

WHAT IS IT YOU WANT?

If you read the links provided WP:NICETRY, what the admins are looking for is that 1) you acknowledge that many people and administrators looked at your edits and found that you were edit warring. 2) that you acknowledge that editwarring is disruptive 3) that you make a credible case that you will not continue disruptive editing. And as an additional incentive you can 4) offer constructive edit suggestions that show you are here to collaboratively improve the encyclopedia. --Active Banana | Talk 17:57, 13 August 2010 (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).

Whether There's Weather Underground (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

You have a strong opinion. You want to add your strong opinion to the encyclopedia. Others disagree. Rather than accepting that your opinion isn't going into the encyclopedia, you keep beating a dead horse. Our choices are (a) wait until you get bored and stop on your own, no matter how much disruption that causes to the work of writing the encydlopedia, or (b) block you from editing for a little while so others can get some useful work done. It looks like User:Crazycomputers chose (b). It doesn't sound like your plans for the future include disagreeing politely and reasonably, and recognizing when you've lost in a disagreement and letting it go, so I'm not sure on what grounds I could unblock this account. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 August 2010 (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.

None of that is true. You want me to lie? I'm pretty much morally opposed to such.

I saw someone abusively and disruptively trying to close, without justification or warning or consensus, a discussion.

I saw someone abusively lie about me, which I find to be INCREDIBLY INSULTING.

I saw someone, very cowardly, refuse to discuss points raised.

And oh look, "Knowledgekid" is STILL AT IT even after someone else has undone KNOWLEDGEKID AND WIKIDEMON'S CONTINUED DISRUPTION AND ABUSE. [3]

If what you want is people to lie, then I no longer wonder why this supposed encyclopedia is in such crappy shape. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we wont be seeing you before tomorrow. Have a good day. --Active Banana | Talk 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. WP:BITE me, you lying asstard. I know you and your buddies are just pulling this because I'm new and you think you can get away with it. Enjoy whatever form of a pitiful erection abusing others gives you. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like my answer to your request, you are welcome to ask again, at least until the point when some administrator decides that your request for review has been fully and sufficiently met and disables your talk page access. However, even if you don't like my answer to your request, you aren't allowed to remove it while you're still asking for unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 13 August 2010 (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).

Whether There's Weather Underground (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yeah, yeah, yeah whatever you corrupt WP:DICK. I read WP:BITE, I read WP:BEAR, I know you are just doing this crap to poke and push and insult me hoping I'll do something you can use to justify doing something even worse because you can't have a fucking orgasm unless you've beat someone up. And I know the reason you're acting like this is because I'm new, and you can get away with doing it to someone new because you do it all the TIME to new people while your sick puppy friends fap off to watching it happen.

What you fail to consider is I really don't fucking care anymore. I know you for what you are now. So do whatever the fuck you want. You'll do that whether I say so or not, but just in case it makes you feel better to hear it, go ahead and do whatever the fuck you want.

Here, I'll even give you an excuse: you're a puny-minded ignoramus who gets a sick sexual thrill out of abusing your ill-gotten power.

Decline reason:

I think we're done here. Go find a new hobby. Block increased to indefinite. Smashville^talk 19:34, 13 August 2010 (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.

I was just about to do that too, and endorse this block. Sandstein 19:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]