User talk:HACKER HEADSHOT

Accusations of racism

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others of being "Indophobic", as you did here, does you no favours. Such a claim is fairly disgusting, considering I'm the main editor responsible for taking the Wikipedia article on Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji (whose father was Indian) to GA-status. Stick to facts, not to labels. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is not used to express personal opinions and object to the prevailing views of yourself Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

The "personal opinions" rule refers to talk pages of articles. Also, please sign your posts, per WP:SIG. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Chess. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Chess

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop following me and bullying me. You will be reported for assuming and acting above your authority and posting threats that talk of banning other users.

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UTN. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you De728631 for looking into the entire episode and being so rational about it. I will pursue this once unblocked through the channels you have advised. Though I understand your reason for reverting the edit on the Chess article again even though the History of Chess starts Chess of as "of Indian origin". I understand consensus will have to be found to include this brief fact in the introduction, somewhere, anywhere in there. I just feel, you agree as an Adminstrator and I agree and most others Wikipedians do also about having that in the introduction that it should not have been so contested by (talk). Thanks though. I have appealed the block after understanding this.

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).

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

Request reason:

It appears I have been blocked for edit warring, Administrator. This, I feel, is incorrect though as I engaged in no such behaviour to such an extent that a block is deserving. I now understand disagreements of content are common and the talk page should be used to discuss differences and avoid such an "edit war". But I am new and rather inexperenced to editing. In line with this innocent wiki knowledge of mine, I seem to have been blocked for adding the following to the Chess article: (chess is) "of Indian origin". Note, this is all I "edit warred" over, I have not added anything else in my Wiki editing history. I simply do not understand why this was contested, given its importance for readers to know early on where Chess descends from, as has been written for most other board game articles. I should timed out but pursused this with User: Toccata quarta. He however was NOT blocked for reverting each and everytime the above post I made about the origin of chess. Therefore this injustice in serving justice to me is the reason that I should be unblocked. Furthermore I simply should NOT be punished to THIS an extent for making the truthful, historically accepted statement that chess is "of Indian origin". I furthermore should be unblocked because I have quickly and already learned not be rash in deciding if a fellow Wikipedian is racist or not, even though they may appear to be so based on their editing activity. Most of all, I feel I have been threatened into this block because of User: Toccata quarta's more Wiki experence and ability to leverage on his/her fellow Wikipedians to harrass me, as can be seen with their comments on my Talkpage. HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, and continued after being warned. So your block is appropriate, and won't be removed. Making up silly fictions about you being the subject or harassment of racism will not change that. Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:41, 27 February 2013 (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.

You were given a WP:3RR warning which contains ample information for an "inexperienced user" regarding our policy on edit warring. Had you read that warning and followed the advice (stop edit-warring with multiple editors and discuss the issue on the talk page instead), you would not have been blocked. This is a relatively short block that is completely within policy. If after the block expires you continue edit warring, you will be blocked again for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTTHEM, WP:AGF, and WP:Truth. These may help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarah Avraham, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]