User talk:Blastingoff

Help request

Hi all.

didn't really expect help right off, but I do need someone to contact me sort of soon. I appreciate it.

Erm, "Hello"? :-) Please ask for help when you need it - we usually respond fairly quick. If you need urgent admin attention, use the admin notice board.

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs]]) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. Chzz ► 11:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

could I actually get an administrator this time? thank you for trying, Chzz. Blastingoff (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Chzz could help you most things anyway, but whats up?--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jac, I doubt you have ever seen a case like this one. I think I need your help. well, yes, actually I do need it. I asked to talk to an admin on Skype or AIM. there are some egregious violations going on and I am the one being attacked. cheers. Blastingoff (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised, but I don't do off-wiki communication, try using the Irc channels, which I know chzz can tell you more about--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not at all surprised. I don't have IRC and can't get it. ok, anyone else?! seriously, this is almost a crisis. bullying on Wiki has reached incredibly high levels. Blastingoff (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about this? I can't see any bullying there, have you considered that perhaps those other editors are not actually attacking you, they just have a different opinion. And I'm assuming these are you right?--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why must I discuss this on here? assuming is a wrong action on your part or anyone else's for that matter. "white knights" are not looked at positively on here, or rarely. I would ask again that you go find an admin to discuss this with me off-site. I can go peruse the list of highly active admins, but that hasn't paid off before. if you want to look up something how about looking up why such awful users have bombarded me and a few others for more than a year. Blastingoff (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be very lucky if you find an admin willing to discuss this sort of thing off-wiki, and even if you do, no action can come of it without details of off-wiki conversations being made public. If you believe you or someone else is being bullied, give us some evidence, post diffs to the edits in question--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you at least help me contact a specific admin? I found one I want to talk with. Blastingoff (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just post on their talk then, or send them an email. But I can guarantee they'll want evidence for any accusations made--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, lucky? this comes down to prevailing winds now? I did find someone I want to talk with. I can ask you to notify said admin. I don't mind if anything is made public, what I don't like is how people can track everything. you can see how it did no good for over a year. why is it nearly impossible to draw the conclusion I may be completely right in this? you do know that people are over all of this "madness" on here. additionally not slamming ages, but most of these idiots are barely in college or still in high school. it is completely outrageous and unwarranted behavior and I really am worried about Wikipedia's future. Blastingoff (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who? --Jac16888 ^Talk 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

evidence? no problem. I can't edit on any other page than this one at the moment. Blastingoff (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fine, the person I am talking about is the user, Philosopher. I know this person is mostly only doing one thing on Wikipedia, but I think they can solve this mess. hopefully anyway. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while and only started having a problem in 2008, thanks mostly to editing TWO articles that had to do with current events. quite obviously I ran into buzzsaws that censor, try to use mindcontrol tactics, and are at the basest or lowest levels of ethics in how they deal with others.

another point: I realize that it is a common occurrence for individuals to develop a complex. they may think the masses are against them. not the case here. several things have combined to make this an unusual situation. the general malaise of Wikipedia users in many instances, the difficulty in stopping inertia, the near impossibility in contacting people, the rise in crazies trying to have their way, etc. I have had it with the stupidity that is so rampant on Wiki. it has to end. Blastingoff (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though you no longer require the assistance of an administrator. Please use the adminhelp template if you have an actual need for an admin, or go to the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and introduction

Hi, Blastingoff. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Blastingoff/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Greetings

Jac said that you're trying to get a hold of me? How can I help? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, of course you can assist. I do want you to know that this is not some small thing; it may be the largest project you have seen until now. I tried telling a few people that I don't really want to discuss this on my talk page. I prefer to use IM, such as AIM and Skype, but if you want we could talk about it on here too. generally I have been pretty hassled for more than a year. check the Beijing Drum Tower article I referenced on this page already. Blastingoff (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll ditto what others said above - I don't do off-wiki communication, sorry. Second, what exactly is the problem? "pretty hassled" is kind of general. Third, apparently you have said you are User:Yadontmind - if so, why aren't you posting from that account? When you are already blocked, but you create a new account to communicate, it starts to look like you are evading your block. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I will try to not rise to the opportunity to be snappish. this is pretty much my point. Wikipedia principles are pretty worthless since they are not understood. whatever happened to assume the best of someone? or don't bite "newcomers, newbies", or in my case veterans of Wiki. I have been on Wikipedia longer than probably all three or four of you admins PUT TOGETHER. we all don't want to be admins though. also we probably have other things to do than spend hundreds and thousands of hours on this site - time that can't be redeemed in any way.

HOWEVER, back to my point. I am a sort of a white knight in the sense that I believe Wikipedia needs to be rescued. it isn't on its last legs yet, but exhibit A could be the attitude you guys are exhibiting. I don't know why, Philosopher, that I thought you were different. don't you think that in a whole year I could have found some decent people to help me? another point, haven't any of you heard of doppelganger id names? or proper usage of multiple ids? get it together, guys. you are completely in error. I realize that we live in an age of vandalism, disrespect, the like. this could be why frivolous edits and "sockpuppetry" (mind you, not all of the accused individuals are indeed posers or puppets) are so loathed. it doesn't detract from the fact that scores and maybe hundreds of users, even admins are incompetent and don't know what is going on.

what is the problem? oh, only about 20 things or more. do you think you are equal to the task of fixing even three of them? what if you could fix all of the problems? here is a beginning list of "what is wrong" and how I have been "pretty hassled". I really don't like how principles on Wiki are misapplied, misquoted, misunderstood. I don't like how a few determined "evildoers" to use a Bushism, operate. seriously though, there are at least fifteen or more super out to lunch users who are abusing me, running amuck, causing mayhem, etc.

can't you see any user who is attacked has very little recourse? they are assumed to be wrong. it is well documented how many reverts are made on Wikipedia. also how if someone tries to contribute it is very likely that their edits will vanish. unless a user is willing to work on backwater articles they will be challenged. look at what you said, me edit using another id? how? one that is blocked? how can I edit with that one? I think you are a little confused.

alright, how about going and reading the whole article? and the talk page. and the archive that has been damaged but could be fixed. it could take you a while but go do that? then you will be more informed. I have reached out to some or even quite a number of administrators. so far I find you to be mostly inept. these are not complicated issues even. this encyclopedia is not a democracy, but, it is not a dictatorship or clown school either. if you were to go read the pieces of writing I have told you about you will see admins who completely miss the ball. you will see users who are inexperienced, even nasty. you will even see on a mediation cabal case where a user convicts himself of abuse. all of this is completely glossed over.

you will see collusion. you will see cohorts trying to drive editors off. you can find minor conspiracies even. also indecision. AfDs, attempts to merge articles that have no business being even considered as the same topic, horrific and senseless disrespect. one user brings up current events to try to sway opinion. heck, there might be communists, anarchists and more all on that one talk page. this is the kind of gross and stupid stuff that occurs. wouldn't you think I can get this reversed? I am even going to be trying to have a couple of these users banned forever. sure, they might learn how to behave but pigs might fly too. I am thoroughly disgusted at the way most of you guys can't see the forest for the trees. and oh, many users are more interested in counting and padding the number of edits they have. also you "don't do off-wiki communication", why? are you that worried about real world stuff infringing on this make-believe nonsense?

how about, let us reason together??

Blastingoff (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not evidence of wrong doing, this is just a bunch of meaningless rhetoric with no evidence apart from that of a huge superiority complex, Mr. White Knight. Its not a doppelganger account if all the rest are blocked. Show real concrete evidence, I.e. diffs of these alleged crime--Jac16888 ^Talk

You should be able to edit your own talk page just fine from a blocked account - in fact, that is what you are supposed to do if you believe you have been improperly blocked - we even have a template to request assistance in that area - {{unblock}}, as you probably know. I don't care if you want to use multiple accounts, but since your main one appears to be blocked, I'm blocking this one as well to avoid WP:EVADE problems, leaving the talk page accessible to you - and if you would like to contest your original block you may do it on that account's talk page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest, I don't see a concrete or particular issue you want help with. Try again? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

good, now I can seek your ban too. you guys are all fools. Blastingoff (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean how stupid can you possibly be? not only could you not figure out the article, talk page, and talk page archive! you also are worse than no help!! I mean it is nearly criminally stupid of you. I suppose if you get banned you can see what it is like to put up with this kind of shoddy treatment. you guys are wacked. Blastingoff (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh get over yourself. Why should we go through pages and archives to find evidence of a wrong doing, when you haven't even told us what the issue is. do it your damn self and perhaps someone might start to take you seriously --Jac16888 ^Talk 12:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is the name of the article. how it was nearly deleted, then attempted to be merged, then moved to an awful name. are you obtuse? what about the relatives of the victim too? Jac, go get some remedial education, ok? Blastingoff (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not only that, but then the archive was created and corrupted also. wow, I am about to go get Jimbo on your cases. Blastingoff (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go for it, I would love to see his response. What me to get him for you? Were the people not stabbed? Do you really think their families cares about a wikipedia article? I think they probably have more pressing issues.--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL, both of you. Blastingoff, personal attacks such as those you have issued here are considered disruption - if you continue, I will (regretfully) have to remove your ability to edit your talk page.

With regard to the issues you brought up, Blastingoff, it appears that there was either a rough consensus, or a lack of consensus defaulting to the status quo, on each of the issues. I don't know what you think administrators can do, but unilaterally overturning consensus is not among our "powers". Sorry. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stop trying to find fault. I find you to be at fault, and pretty close to inept. no, you are totally wrong. there is no consensus on that article or the talk page, WHICH you WOULD KNOW IF you bothered to read any of it. here, do this. go read it. and yeah, there is no consensus on the status quo of the issues either. there may be consensus that admins are ignorant though! can you go learn? Blastingoff (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find consensus here Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings/Archive 1#"Stabbing" or "Stabbings" or "Attack" (or other word) in the title, 7 people said stabbings, 3 didn't care, and 2 said attack, one of which was you. And here Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings/Archive 1#One week on, more people chose stabbing in the title. And here Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings#Requested Move (March 2009) there was no objection to the move, and here, after nearly 6 months at its current title, Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings#Requested move), one of your socks turns up again, and not a single person supported. That, is how you show evidence, not with meaningless drivel and insults. --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jac, you are clueless. that is not consensus. there are a few factors at work. one, this is not a recent news article. two, a few ridiculous idiots are driving people off of it. three, you clearly have not the abilities of a junior cub reporter. I doubt you ever wrote any real news in your life. do you realize who you are arguing with? why can't you go back to being neutral until you figure a few more things out? Blastingoff (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there's a surprise, I show that most people disagree with you, but oh no, that's not consensus, its only consensus when its consensus for what you want it to be. And no I've never written for news, I do something much more difficult. And no I don't know who you are, I imagine you're not anywhere near as important as you imagine yourself to be, generally people who are overly biased and refuse to change their opinions about a subject regardless of the countless arguments don't get very far. I tried to be neutral, I have asked you again and again to provide solid evidence for your rants as opposed to just saying "go look over there". Since you haven't given any, I have to accept what is there. Or does your boss at your really important job not want you to provide evidence for the things you write? Do you write fiction? Mr. Brown? --Jac16888 ^Talk 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ohhhh, this is really getting old and silly. Jac, I have some ideas for you to consider. has no one tried to get you banned or taken off the site? or recalled? I think I could find time to do those things if you continue to not listen at all.

let's try something. how about skipping rhetoric? or maybe trying to be conciliatory and less belligerent? what are you gaining with the track you are on presently? did you ever stop and think that you could be totally in error? I suppose you don't know how to go review the merits of the topics I addressed. go ahead list the topics and put what you think about each one. go review all 85 - 90 Kb of material, not 4 Kb that you selected. don't be lazy. Blastingoff (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and yeah, I will address one of your lame statements. you said no one objected to one of the moves. one thing first, the person trying to move it that time had already tried to DELETE, MERGE, and probably other things first. they are one of the worst people on this site. as stated there have been more than 15 moves or whatever for this article. there was almost no support for the move either. you do a really poor job arguing; don't consider being a lawyer or anything that you need debate skills for. Blastingoff (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, nobody has ever suggested i be blocked, banned, desysopped or removed. Except for you, so clearly the rest of wikipedia is wrong. See this Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings#Requested Move (March 2009)? Notice how nobody opposed it at that time? I tried to help you here, i really did. I didn't block you when I discovered your little sock farm. I didn't lock this page when you started ranting without mentioning names and making wild accusations about the system in general, or demanding admin after admin because the ones you had weren't up to your standards, or when you began insulting my intelligence. The only person spouting rhetoric here is you: "I am a sort of a white knight in the sense that I believe Wikipedia needs to be rescued", "what is the problem? oh, only about 20 things or more. do you think you are equal to the task of fixing even three of them?", "you will see collusion. you will see cohorts trying to drive editors off. you can find minor conspiracies even. also indecision." As for debating, How do you think you would fare as a lawyer? How's your mission to "save wikipedia" going? Doesn't look very impressive to me. Not to mention your continued inability to provide any form of concrete evidence. But here's the thing. I don't care, I really don't, none of this matters to me in the slightest. So go ahead, continue on your quest, it really makes no difference. I'm done here now, had you actually asked from my help from the start rather than demanding someone better, maybe you would have got somewhere, but never mind. Have a nice life.--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the very first time you are right, I guess you didn't know. let me explain. it wasn't that I "wanted someone better" or "needed more help than you could offer". I just was weary of one whole year of nonsense. if you want to help me, I will let you. "saving Wikipedia" is going to take tons of help since admins want it to become this cliquish morass. how about helping me? evidence? I reiterate, GO READ it. why are you asking me to repeat ad nauseam statements from there? go read them for yourself. it is a travesty that this continues. if you choose to try to understand, I will enlighten you. after you have perused the whole page, talk page, and the talk page archive that is somehow shortened drastically, maybe we can fix the archive and then go from there. back to how you were right, Philosopher is useless and worse, a bit of a danger. Blastingoff (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and yes, Chzz is NOT an admin. I demanded nothing. only asked for a certain administrator who turned out to be a dud. I can overlook your seeming penchant for inaccuracies and begin this again. will you help? Blastingoff (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Philosopher, and I say this tongue in cheek as you have no philosophical characteristics... rough consensus? what in heck is that? tell you what, go through the archive and come back with something that is intelligible. I can see I am going to have a huge job going through admins and seeking their dismissal. you guys are really out of line. Blastingoff (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]