User talk:Hobbe Yonge

September 2013 - Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianann MacAmhlaidh claims that "Og" is not a surname meaning "Young". He uncermoniously removed the entry that says it is. I provided the evidense that he asked to see, yet he continued to vandalize my contribution. While a debate was ongoing, he continued to remove an entry that he didn't like. Even though he was involved in the Revert War, he posted the above warning, without involving any higher authority. He could simply have placed a "source needed" tag and avoided the entire conflict. Brianann's modus operandi appears to be gaming wikipedia's rules. A simple google search on "Og Surname" would show that his arguement is frivolous. He has said himself that "Og" means "Young". Surnames exists all over the world that mean "Young". For example: the German Jung and Junk; the Dutch Jong; The Romani Tarno; and the French Lejeune and Lajeunesse. He has admitted that "Og" is a surname. He continues to claim that Og as a surname does NOT mean young, yet is still a surname... Hobbe Yonge (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is not optional here

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Clan Young. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much does it cost to buy your way into the inner circle, where you can do whatever the fuck you want to and anyone who complains gets banned? I have as much disposable income as these other jerks.

I think what I shall do, as the owner of HTTP://WWW.CLANYOUNG.INFO is to invoke copywrite and remove my contributions... Hobbe Yonge (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you there's not an editor here who can say "You're a fucking idiot" to another editor with impunity. At any rate, you have no copyright claim on contributions you've made here; that's the nature of Wikipedia -- all contributions are released under GFDL. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Brianann MacAmhlaidh IS a fucking idiot. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For The Record

After all the crap, the edit wars, the warnings, the threats, and the bans.... "Og" was added back in by QuintusPetillius in Sept 2014

Wikipedia staff have no clue and Brianann MacAmhlaidh is still a fucking idiot.

Hobbe Yonge (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Warning January 7, 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, you people suck. I don't see any warnings given to Leitmotiv for his continuous belittling of other editors. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked before for making personal attacks. Your first post at the article talk page today was not about the article but to attack an editor. You shouldn't be surprised to get a warning. Complaining that someone else didn't doesn't justify your behavior. If you don't want another and longer block, it's easy. Just don't talk about other editors but use talk pages to help improve the article. Doug Weller talk 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply pointed out that an editor was interjecting personal opinion into an article and you bitches jump all over me. Fine. Do whatever you want. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"But I am unwilling to once again get banned through the actions of another self righteous left wing fanatic. Suffice it to say, I will eventually rejoice in my victory"--that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm surprised you didn't get blocked on 7 January for this. Your final victory will have to come after an unblock request, and I would like any unblocking admin to ping me, so we can impose a discretionary sanctions topic ban on you for your editing in the area governed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Is Jake Tapper, Chief Washington Correspondent for CNN a credible source? https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1087100286433402881?s=19

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:01, 21 January 2019 (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.

If you want to get unblocked, you need to convince an administrator that you will not engage in any further personal attacks whatsoever. You need to make a rock solid promise that you will never say anything like this again: "More fucking morons on wikipedia... Begging for money and publishing fake news. Fuck off all of you."

In the sake of accuracy, Wikipedia editors do not "beg for money". The fundraising is done by the Wikimedia Foundation that pays for the servers and technical support for the #5 website in the world. They have very little to do with the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, which is self-governed. As for the specific content dispute, breaking news stories often change as more information and wider reporting becomes available. The Jake Tapper tweet is a perfect example. Patience and care is needed to edit such articles, and blowing your stack is completely counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the notes of any admin considering unblocking this user, they have been sending me emails including:

I would accept an apology any time you care to offer one up.
I fully expect a death threat instead, so it's probably best you just stay silent, knowing that you won the battle, but I won the war.
Wikipedia is fake news. I hope you all get sued along with the main stream media.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]