User talk:Hollow are the Ori

Notice: This discussion page is kept free of clutter, duplicitous arguments, and pointless tangents. --Hollow are the Ori

User block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of this block is 24 hours. Do not remove warnings or notices from this page. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes while blocked

Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks is a guideline not a concrete policy, I intentionally titled it "should not" rather than "must not". Though, I consider it extremely important for editors to understand precisely why wikilinking inside a quotation is a no-no and I suspect very very few if any wikilinks inside quotations will ever be appropriate. Hollow are the Ori 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username discussion

For somebody who's so concerned with proper use of quotes, I find it ironic that your username contains a misquote. The correct phrase from Stargate: SG1 is "Hallowed are the Ori." CovenantD 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my username I modified that Ori mantra purposely to be an anti Ori mantra. Not irony, apropos rebelliousness. Hollow are the Ori 04:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Strassel report on WP:RFI

That is a content dispute. Note that doesn't mean I think you are wrong (or right for that matter) in the dispute, but that is not the place for reporting content disputes. See Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Help, which includes the lines:

Make sure that the alert doesn't belong on one of the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: content and user disputes must go through the appropriate dispute resolution process. This particularly includes edit wars, incivility, and trolling.

Appropriate parts of the dispute resolution process might include a request for comment on the issue. Please feel free to get back to me if you have any further questions, but do not re-add the report to RFI. Thanks, Petros471 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't have chance to read the above before your second revert so I'll say it again- reverting an admin's decision can be seen as disruption, which is a blockable offense. As I'd be the person investigating the report (which I have done, and determined that it is a content dispute, not vandalism), reverting me isn't going to help. Petros471 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disrupting the requests for investigation page is bad form and may well lead to a block for diruption, i strongly suggest you cease your actions unless you wish to add information to the disucssionBenon 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way: This is your last warning. Do not revert WP:RFI again or you will be blocked for breaking the WP:3RR and for disruption. Petros471 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you didn't take the hint: Petros471 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating policy against disruption and excessive reverting. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.

Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

Category alphabetization

When you add categories to biographical articles, please alphabetize the name within the category. You can do this by adding a pipe ("|") after the name of the category and then entering the name last, first. Like so:

[[Category:Sample category|Smith, John]]

Not doing this adds the name under J and not S. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Thank you. Gamaliel 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to be unblocked and an investigation

It does not make sense that some admins want to remove my REQUEST for investigation from the WP:RFI page. More investigation is needed to determine if the Kimberley Strassel and Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks matter is a content dispute or vandalism. In my interpretation adding wikilinks or html links to a quotation is a form of vandalism because it taints the author's intended meaning(s) and corrupts abstract conceptualization by visually emphasizing the literalness of words. Do not underestimate the omni-pervasiveness of excessively literal words and phrases some use to induce errant gut reactions in you for the purpose of vast control. Many of the other usernames involved in this dispute, including admins, appear to be acting in very bad faith. Hollow are the Ori 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of RFI is quite clear and the guides for what is and isn't accepted is clear. You were told that your request was not something RFI could do but persisted in a war to readd it. The block is quite legitimate. --pgk^(talk) 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation takes time, one or a small group of admins arbitrarily making decisions that involve deletion is not a process and is indicative of censorship. It's coincidentally interesting some admins were thwarting the visibility of my complaint at the same time other users were seemingly trying to provoke me into frustration by adding wikilinks to quotations of articles I've created perhaps all as part of a coordinated plan to thwart acceptance of Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks. Feel free to disagree with my complaint, you should even state your position on the RFI page, but my complaint absolutely shouldn't have been immediately deleted. Hollow are the Ori 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again RFI is well defined, they don't have to take on any old crap just because someone decides they want to put it there, nor do they have to give a detailed explaination of why they remove items which are inappropriate. You were more than adequately warned and persisted. You were pointed to the appropriate place to deal with your issue dispute resoloution, i.e. you were helped. If you had a dispute then you should have taken it to the talk page or the talk page of those involved, not waged a war. Given your current attitude and rants about censorship (wikipedia is not a free web host) don't bode well for when this block expires. --pgk^(talk) 07:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of my complaints against you and those coordinated with you as "rants", though that is a good way to mischaracterize and hence obfuscate your complicity in: censorship, vandalism and coordinated stifling. Feel free to disagree with my REQUEST for investigation but a small group of admins should not be able to immediately deny that request without any easily accessible history. No one has offered an actual argument against Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks, it almost seems as if a small group of coordinated users want to befuddle quotations and articles by adding wikilinks to them. Hollow are the Ori 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No one has offered an actual argument against..." Read the messages above which tells you why brining that issue to RFI is inappropriate, no one is telling you that you are wrong on that matter so of course they aren't offering any arguments against it, it is a CONTENT DISPUTE, something which RFI DOES NOT DEAL WITH, you want DISPUTE RESOLUTION --pgk^(talk) 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All along I have stated that the issue is not a content dispute, rather it is direct vandalism that has resulted in lower article quality. That is precisely what I requested the investigation to determine: content dispute vs vandalism. You are entitlted to your disagreeing interpretation but please don't, perhaps inadvertently, mischaracterize or thwart an investigation for everyone else. Hollow are the Ori 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And all along other have stated it is a content dispute. Those who look after and "man" the RFI page have said it's a content dispute and not something they deal with. What will it take to get through to you that it is not something RFI will deal with? Take it to dispute resolution. e.g. an RFC. --pgk^(talk) 18:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having an investigation is to spend time analyzing what the issue is rather than letting a small group of admins force their, perhaps inaccurate, interpretation on everyone else. Hollow are the Ori 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

Hello. This message is regarding the page Scientific method. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Jon Awbrey 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: The above does not involve any sort of "popup", as you call it, but is the standard boilerplate that in my judgment best befit your repeated insertion of the very same edit that had been discussed and rejected many times already. Jon Awbrey 18:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

love the name

love the userpage 2

hallowed are the ori... brilliant. -- Alfakim -- talk 20:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ori were hollow not hallowed. Hollow are the Ori 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

I've blocked this account as a puppet account of Zen-master (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Hollow are the Ori (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review and re-open the Zen-master arbitration case

Decline reason:

You need to email the arbitration comittee about tha

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.

Please review and re-open the Zen-master arbitration case. Hollow are the Ori 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope things are going well. Why do you want the case reopened? Has anything changed? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The, possibly inadvertent, tone of your message seems carefully designed to discourage an investigation of the issues which is always bad, shame on you. Nothing has to change to request a review. This request is for non-involved admins and users (of which you don't count Tom) to investigate my interpretation of censorship, obfuscation, propaganda within some Wikipedia articles which has been perpetuated by some Wikipedia users, admins and arbitration committee members. Hollow are the Ori 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users and admins outside of the arbitration committee are the ones that should perform the review. Hollow are the Ori 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it wouldn't be reopening the arbcom case. Admins cannot overide the decisions of the arbitration committee. --pgk^(talk) 19:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note "Blocked editor: your unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.", do not restore the unblock tag or you could lose the privilege of editing this page. --pgk^(talk) 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that seemingly new practice, the {unblock review} template should be kept separate from my (ongoing) request for review. Please don't disturb my (continuing) request for review [it's not a new request]. I don't see how anyone could have performed a full review of the complex issues involved in the short time period that has elapsed. Feel free to note elsewhere your or whomever's personal individual denial of my request, but I still request a review by others/everyone. My editing this talk page is not a priviledge, the entire point of allowing blocked/banned users to edit their talk page is so they have a voice to dispute a block. My talk page is where I am suppose to make the case for myself. Allowing a single admin to attempt to portray the issue as closed or denied is against the whole point of giving blocked/banned users a voice. Please let each and everyone decide the issues for themself. Hollow are the Ori 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly as the sockpuppet of a banned user, your view on the new system is irrelevant. You don't need your talk page to make your case, email arbcom. --pgk^(talk) 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you?

Why did you? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHollow_are_the_Ori&diff=63867392&oldid=63864754 DyslexicEditor 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you failed to see my checkin comment there that described your edit as "random out of the blue vandalism". Hollow are the Ori 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not a fan of StarGate SG-1 like your name would make me think. DyslexicEditor 06:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not logically follow. I am a big fan but fandom is inappropriate in a section dedicated to requesting to be unblocked. And the fact you happened to notice my user talk page and post here when I can't even remember hearing of your account previously is strikingly out place compared to what one would expect to be ordinary. How did you even notice this talk page? It's very interesting one ostensibly random person (you) noticed this page suddenly to comment on stargate SG-1, but 0 random user accounts (that weren't already directly watching this page) have commented on my request for review and re-opening of Zen-master's arbitration case. Hollow are the Ori 08:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found you in the category requests for unblock. DyslexicEditor 20:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please review the issues rather than referencing tangential fandom. Hollow are the Ori 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bret Stephens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bret Stephens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bret Stephens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Msnicki (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Matthew Rose (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Rose (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Rose (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kimberley Strassel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kimberley Strassel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Strassel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]