User talk:Johncons

Grandiosa

You appear to be conducting a vendetta against this product and have reverted several efforts to dissuade you. Please stop! Ros0709 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about your edits on the page talk:Grandiosa. I would invite you to justify the edits you are making, and in particular respond to my criticism that your edits are neither established research nor written from a neutral point of view. Ros0709 11:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user info

Welcome!

Hello, Johncons, 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:

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!

December 2007

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Grandiosa. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. You edits are Original research, and non-NPOV. The sources that you cite are not reliable sources. The article has been reverted to how it was at the start of this editing spree Mayalld 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Grandiosa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mayalld 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Grandiosa, you will be blocked from editing. Mayalld 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply appealing again, to take this on the articles discussion page.

Like I also was earlier, but you ignored it, and started discussing here in stead.

Johncons 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to you on the article talk page why your edits cannot remain at present, and have explained exactly what you need to do to get the edits accepted there as requested.

I have issued warnings to you as to your conduct here on your user talk page, because that is the correct place to issue warnings. Mayalld 13:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking things out of context.

I was appealing again, before you wrote on the article discussion page.

'13:04, 3 December 2007 Johncons (Talk | contribs) (13,303 bytes) (Undid revision 175474462 by Mayalld (talk) Could we please take this on the discussion-page?) (undo)'.

Well, I'll have a look at it again, at the edits, and see if I can get them better in line with the citation policy.

But I can't see that I should be accused of vandalism, when I was only appealing for the discussion to be held on the discussion page.

And you actually ignored my first appeal, so it was really you who started acting out of line.

Thats at least the way I see it.

Just for the record, while I'm writing here.

Johncons 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The default position, in respect of edits to a page that there is no consensus for is that the page remains as it was before the disputed edits were added, whilst discussion takes place. Your appeal that the edits remain whilst they are discussed isn't how things are done on Wikipedia.

I reverted your unsourced contributions twice quoting a lack of reliable sources as a reason, assumed good faith on your part, and warned you on your talk page. When you (again) restored the information, despite having received two warnings about adding unsourced material, it was right and proper to describe your actions as vandalism, and warn you accordingly, as it was clear that you were engaging in edit warring with multiple editors.

I repeat what I said on the article talk page. I will gladly assist you in vetting the sources to establish what can go up as a NPOV sourced piece, but that is conditional on you ceasing attempting to push an unsourced POV in the article. Mayalld 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just refering to what I was writing in my last post here, and also to the article discussion-page, since I think it's easier to just discuss one place at a time.

Johncons 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying to me yesterday, I did learn some Swedish many years ago but haven't used it since. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WQA and ANI

This is a very dissapointing action on your part.

I have invested a good deal of time and effort in trying to;

Help you understand what cannot go into wiki
Help you pull together some text on the subject that can.

and all this on an article that is of zero interest to me.

Throughout this I have remained civil, even in the face of your somewhat testy reactions where people have declined to answer loaded questions.

In short, I have gone out of my way to try and help you. In return, I find that you have tried very hard to stir up trouble for me.

I have tried to help you, but no more.

Mayalld (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your comment.

Like I've written in the netiquette-section, I hope you are agreeing with me, that we discuss this one on place at a time, so I've commented on both of your posts in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

Hope that this is alright, and thanks in advance for the help with the cooperation on this!

Johncons (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Grandiosa, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptiveness, refusal to comply with established policies regarding sourcing of information despite being advised on several occasions, instigating frivolous administrative actions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Manning (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

I'm not sure what this is about, so I think I must have been harassed. Johncons (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't been harassed.

You tried to push your fringe theory on an article.
It was made clear that unsourced POV wasn't going to be tolerated.
I tried to work with you to come up with what was acceptable
You simply complained that nobody would answer your leading questions
You then started raising multiple complaints of harassment, and the like, which the admins found entirely unconvincing.

You chose to drag me through the mud, for no more reason than that I wouldn't answer your questions in a way that allowed you to get around wikipedia policies

I'm sick of being subjected to these malicious and vexatious complaints from you, and so I made a report of my own, in an attempt to get some respite. Curiously the same audience that failed to see any merit in your multiple complaints about me rapidly came to the conclusion that your behaviour was sufficient breach of policy that you should be blocked for at least 24 hours

There are two possible conclusions;

Your behaviour is at fault
There is a mass conspiracy to get at you

Choose with care which you think is most likely

Mayalld (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayalld,

thank you very much for your answer!

we had a netiquette/Wikiquette alerts-session, some days ago, from wich you concluded that you had failed in your efforts to teach me, and then you didn't want to 'pollute the page with more text'.

'Reply by User:Mayalld No I'm not saying that you are difficult to teach. I am saying that I have failed in my efforts to teach you.

Having said that, I refuse to pollute this page with even more text, as people really do have better things to do,

Mayalld (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=176102388

SO we didn't get an agreement, regarding how we should interact in the future.

You just left the process.

I think that, you have played yourself a bit out, because if you wanted to interact more with me on Wikipedia or other places, after the Wikiquette-process, then I think you should have finnished the process there, and reached an agreement regarding how we should interact in the future.

In stead, you choose to say that 'people had better things to do', than reading about the netiquette-issue.

So you didn't think it was important to reach an agreement regarding future interaction.

So now, I'm a bit unsure on how you want this interaction to be pursued, since you didn't appologise at all for the harassment directed at me, from before the netiquette-process.

You just left the process before any agreement was made.

So I think you should make your possision regarding this clear, before you continue to write posts that are directed at me.

I hope that you agree with me in this, and thanks very much in advance for you help!

Johncons (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuing agreements isn't something that you do on admin noticeboards. You go to admin noticeboards when you want somebody else to look at the situation and pronounce on it.

You went to the noticeboards four times, and four times you failed to find anybody who felt that you had been wronged.
I went to the admin noticeboards once, and an admin reviewed the situation, and decided that you had behaved contrary to wikipedia policy.

I offer no apology for my behaviour, because I am satisfied that I have behaved properly, as are the admins that reviewed the reports that were made.

You really need to accept that you were wrong, and that you can't get your own way by screaming "harrasment" like a petulant child every time you don't get your own way.

As to future interaction, provide you desist from POV-pushing, and from attempting to stir up trouble for me, there will be no need for future interaction. If you continue to try to add fringe theories to Wikipedia, or to attempt to cause trouble for me, I will deal with that as before in a civil fashion. You should be under no illusion though. Continuing in the same vein as you have edited so far will inevitably lead to you being blocked again.

Mayalld (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I seem to mean that you exited the nettiquette-session, before the issue was resolved.

I don't think we should interact before the issue is resolved.

So I seem to think that I'm being harassed by you, since I don't really apprieciate to interact with you.

At least not until we resolve how this interaction should be conducted.

legal threats redacted by Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}

I wrote on the admin-board four times, thats right.

But I'm new on Wikipedia, and all of those posts, were not regarding the netiquette issue with you.

It was regarding an issue with another user, and more.

I just wanted to ask them for advice, on how to continue, with a nettiquette-process, when one of the users, exits the process, before it is resolved, like you did in the nettiquette-session.

So I don't really understand why you are on my back here on Wikipedia.

I would think that we should have a trust, and don't direct posts to eachother, for maybe a certain periode of time.

I don't seem to think, that the dialog we are having here, is very meaningful.

So I would think that it would make more sense to have a trust, and not direct posts to eachother, for a certain periode of time.

What do you think yourself about this?

Thanks in advance for you reply!

Johncons (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you expect Mayalld to do here because you've first asked him not to engage any more, and then asked him a question you expect an answer to.

Anyway, I have mostly withdrawn from the Grandiosa debate but kept an eye on it to see what happens, mostly because I have become more and more amazed by your behaviour - and, frankly, I really cannot believe what I am seeing. Let me make this absolutely clear: as they were, your updates to the article could not stay. Several people, myself included, removed them and moved on; Mayalld was the only editor who took the time and trouble to attempt to work with you to improve the article so it could stay in some form and yet you turned round and bit him. He was helping you, yet you responded as if he was hindering you. Your attempts to get administrators on your side and have him admonished have just antagonised more and more people and no-one is supporting you. Can you not see this? When you are in a big hole, Stop Digging. Be big enough to accept that an error was made and, please, just move on. Ros0709 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ros0709,

you've got it all wrong.

It was the user Mayalld, who exited the Nettiquetter-session.

Before it was resolved.

And then he appeared on this page, on this time and date: 'User talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 23:09, 10 December 2007'.

So this is what has been going on.

After this, I've again tryed to get this resolved.

Since it seems to me, that this user, is a bit on my back here.

So this is the order of events, regarding this.

Just to make this clear.

Also, you say he was trying to help me.

That might be right.

But what I reacted to, was that he often gave advice, on questions, that I hadn't asked advice for.

(This in my book, is called to patronise).

Also, even if one are giving advice, then one also should have in the back of ones head, that one should act in accordance to the nettiquette-principles.

But it was this I was reacting on, since I don't think one should have to accept being harassed and patronised etc.

Communication, also on Wikipedia, should be in line with general manners, and nettiquette, I think.

You say I've been trying to get Administatiors to oppose the user, thats not right.

I've been asking for advice on general procedures regarding how to go forward if one are being harassed etc.

And this has not meant to be personal towards anyone, I've just tryed to learn how to deal with things on Wikipedia.

So I hope I have got to explain this now.

And please just ask me if there is anyhing, that I should explain more about.

Hope that this is alright!

Johncons (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shell,

I've tried to use the dispute resolution.

What happened, was that the user exited the prosess, before it was resolved.

And I tried to ask on the Adminstrator-board, about advice, on what I should do then.

But then I was given a 24 hr block.

And the user, reappeared, on this page, on '23:09, 10 December 2007'.

And after that, I've tried to negotiate a trust.

But if you have some advice, regarding how I should go forward, from here.

Then that would be very fine!

(I'm going to put a notice on your discussion-page as well, in case you don't read this).

Because it would be very fine with some advice regarding this!

Hope that this is alright!

Johncons (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you seem to believe that you were involved in a dispute resolution process that works by two users mutually discussing an issue and reacing an agreement as to how to proceed.

Neither WP:ANI nor WP:WQA are part of such a process. Both are places where you take a complaint and leave it for others to draw a conclusion. Once you have put your case, it is entirely proper to withdraw and say no more. It would be entirely wrong to embark on an extended discussion between the two of us on the noticeboards. The proper place to do that is on either your talk page or mine.

You need to reflect that your four entries onto the noticeboards were deemed to be a disruptive abuse of process. That is the admins telling you that you were wrong to make those posts as you did.

People are telling you loud and clear that you are doing things wrong. Yet in the same breath as saying that you don't understand how things work, you try to tell people that they are doing it wrong.

As to your original questions... no, people didn't always answer the questions that you asked directly. People did that because a simple yes/no answer to those questions would very likely give an incorrect impression of wikipedia policy, or because the question was based on certain assumptions that the person answering didn't feel were correct.

Mayalld (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break for sanity

Ok, first, please stop putting each sentence you type on a new line, you're taking up an incredible amount of space everywhere and its harder to follow what's going on. If you'd explain what you believe the problem is, I can try to give you advice on how to resolve it. Shell ^babelfish 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think I'll write the way I'm used to, if thats alright.

Since I'm not that young, that I can change this from one minute to another.

Hope that this is alright!

What it is.

Is that I initiated a Nettiquette-session, with the user Mayalld

Since, I thought there had been some nettiquette-issus, between me and the user.

I thought that I had been harassed, and patroised, by the user, and I wanted us to get an agreement regarding how we should go forward with our interaction in the future, bearing these problems in mind.

It's the Wikiquette alert: 4.17 User:Mayalld in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=177299522

In this Wikiquette-session the user writes this:

'No I'm not saying that you are difficult to teach. I am saying that I have failed in my efforts to teach you.

Having said that, I refuse to pollute this page with even more text, as people really do have better things to do,

Mayalld (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)'.

And then exits the process, without the process being resolved.

Then, on 23:09, 10 December 2007, the user re-appears, on this page, and start to write posts directed at me, even if we haven't found a resolution, for the Nettiquette process.

I had already tried to get advice on the Adminstrator-board, on how to forward, if a user exits a nettiquette resolution process, before it resolved.

But I didn't get any advice.

For some reason, unclear to me, I got a 24 hr block instead.

Then, after the user have re-appeared on my discussion page, even the resolution process, was exited by the user, and is this still not resolved.

After this, I've been a bit unsure on how to go forward with the interaction with the user.

So, I've amongst other things, tried to negoiate a trust.

Here on my discussion page, since the user appeared here again.

But I haven't managed to do this yet.

So this is were we're at now, the way I see it.

So my position in this, is that I'm trying to get a trust negotiatied.

I'd like to try to get an agreement on, that the user and myself, give eachother a break, for a certain periode of time, in which we don't direct any posts to eachoter.

I haven't managed this yet.

But I think this would be a fine way to solve this I think.

If I could make a suggestion regarding this.

But I was wondering if you have any advice, regarding how you think this should be dealt with?

Thanks very much in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly futile!

Yet again, somebody has given you sound advice, and you decline to take it.

Yet again, you repeat your claim that I refused to participate in a process, despite being told time and again that the pages that you posted to were NOT for discussions between users, but to request that a third party gives a view.

Please, read what people write! Mayalld (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not even interested in learning how to use the talk page without making people scroll 3 times just to read your message, I'm not sure you're really interested in any help. Apparently you didn't like the something Mayalld said, or at least I guess that's what you're saying. There is no such thing as this "Netiquette" process you keep referring to. Move on and stop running around everywhere complaining of the problem. 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

What Wikipedia needs least of all, among the very many things it does not need even a little tiny bit, is unrepentant POV-warriors whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to push some bizarre conspiracy theory which lacks any independent reliable sources. We've put up with your bullheadedness for more than long enough, your fatuous "wikiquette alert" in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute where you are unambiguously in the wrong, is one step too far. Wikipedia is not Usenet, it is not for everybody, not everybody is able to "get" how Wikipedia works. You seem to be one of those people. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are speculating.

One have to start somewhere with the contributions, and one can't understand everything at once.

So if haven't got the oppertunity to learn one thing at the time, then I think you are right that English Wikipedia isn't the place for me.

This seems to be a place were people are blocked just based on pure speculation.

And I think there has been comited several incidents of harassment towards me, on this page, so I'm going to bring this up, if I get the oppertunity.

So thanks very much for the cooperation on English Wikipedia.

Legal threat redacted by Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}

So Goodbye to most of you, and maybe to some, auf wiedersen.

Johncons (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all you wanted to learn is how to get your unverifiable stories into wikipedia, whilst all that others wanted to teach you was how to be a constructive editor.

Nobody is blocked based on speculation. You were blocked for 24 hours because you repeatedly ignored policy even when it had been explained to you, and because you abused the dispute resolution processes. You were then blocked indefinitely because you failed to learn even after your earlier block that you must abide by policy.

Nobody has harassed you. People have simply applied policy. You seem to think that you can bleat "harassment", and have all policies not apply to you.

Your continued legal threats really are very silly indeed.

Mayalld (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]