User talk:King of Mercia

Note

IP address "140.168.71.18" has been warned against making personal attacks on other editors as they did to your Talk Page. If this happens again please report it at WP:AIN. Thanks, _Will^dow (Talk) 09:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Adrian Chiles. Thank you. Nothing in the source you cited mentions "positive discrimination"; this is your own conclusion and not permissible in an encyclopedia. I strongly advise you to read some of our major policies, not least on biographies of living people. Rodhull andemu 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staffordshire hoard

Would you mind discussing the issue on the talk page rather than just reverting? Reverting other editors over and over is frowned on; it's always better to discuss. There is also a rule against reverting too much: see WP:3RR. Mike Christie (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realized you had commented there; ignore this. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heather Trott. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Frickative 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

Please do not introduce passages of your own personal thoughts and analysis into articles, as you did with this edit. The cite you supplied does not support the majority of what you added and Wikipedia isn't the place to voice your own opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Andy Murray, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rodhull andemu 20:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite you supplied does not support what you added. It has absolutely zero about;

"currying favour with the English Public"
"morose outlook"
"inability to project a personality"
"dour Jock"
"miserable bastard"

These are all just your personal opinions and petty insults that verges on plain vandalism. Not only is this a violation of neutral policy, but a violation of biography policy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Yet another unsourced breach of WP:BLP and WP:POV to your "credit". You seems to be confusing this encyclopedia with some sort of blog where anything goes, and you now have 48 hours off to carefully consider our policies and whether you are willing to subscribe to them.. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhull andemu 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Rodhullandemu, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Mentions of "size 12 jackboots", implying a Nazi connection, are among the quickest and surest ways of being blocked here. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I've replied to your other point on my talk page, but you have yet to convince me that your recent block has concentrated your mind on accepted ways of editing and interacting here. Rodhull andemu 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rodhull andemu, I do so love you and my respect for you hase gone up two-hundred-fold watching you deal with this rather neanderthal editor. CrossHouses (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 16:36, 29 January 2010 (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).

King of Mercia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was WARNED not to make any further personal attacks. I was prepared to adhere to this warning. Then, without any further personal attacks, I was issued with an indefinite block. Why? I would like to be unblocked as I have not violated any Wikipedia guidelines since I was warned.

Decline reason:

You didn't really deserve anything other than an permanent ban after an edit like this. We don't need this sort of garbage here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:14, 30 January 2010 (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.

Comment only (I am not reviewing the block, since I am a friend of Rodhullandemu.) Since RH&E was involved they properly only warned you regarding your comments. It is still permissible for another admin to review the original comment(s) and decide to sanction for that. This is likely what happened here, since your comments including threats of violence are proscribed under WP policy. Under the circumstances, I think you should address the original cause for complaint rather than try to argue the process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add this: as an admin here, I block many users who transgress our rules, and I obviously take some comeback in the course of that. Cyber-threats do not worry me. What worries me here is that when you were adequately warned about compliance with our policies and guidelines, you persisted in the same, as I stated in my block notice above. Following that, you called me a "pathetic cunt" (water off a duck's back, really- I've lived in Liverpool), offered to come round to my "home address to discuss it" (although there is no way you would ever be able to gain access to my address), and called me a "coward" (which is rich indeed coming from behind a keyboard). That is the edit which seems to have led to Tnxman realising that your presence here is not constructive. Your comment about "size 12 jackboots" would have been enough, in my opinion, to ensure your indefinite block regardless of the quality of your article edits, even if such had been beyond reproach. But they weren't. Rodhull andemu 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Clique

Congratulations! To Rodhullandemu et al. It seems I've been banned indefinitely because I used a naughty word. How very, very mature of you all. Well, to quote the T-1000 : "I'll be back!". In the meantime, you lot carry on your superheroic crusades removing vandalism *chortle! chortle!* and making Wikipedia a safer place *eye roll*. It's good to know somebody's making a difference in this world. But - and I know it's a big but - if you can tear yourself away from your pc for a couple of minutes to take a long look in the mirror - do it! Believe me, y'all need to. Peace. King of Mercia (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limp. I assume on this basis that you're not going to apply for a further unblock. You are, however, free to email the Arbitration Committee if you think such an application has any merit. You'd be advised to read this first. Rodhull andemu 01:55, 30 January 2010 (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).

King of Mercia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

An indefinite block is cruel and unusual punishment. All my edits have been made in good faith; none were defamatory or intended to offend and all have since been cited. My attack was offensive but Rodhullandemu was uncivil to me first. I can prove it if need be

Decline reason:

Anytime you threaten ANY editor (whether an admin or not) with physical violence, OR unleash profanities at them for simply enforcing a key policy on Wikipedia, the longest-termed possible block is required, not as punishment, but protection to Wikipedia and to all editors, as it's quite clear that there is no opportunity for collegial editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 31 January 2010 (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.

Hypocrisy

I'm sick of this clique mentality. Rodhullandemu told me my proposed contribution to an article was worth "fuck all". He also aggressively removed a legitimate talking point from the article's talk page as "unsourced bollocks". My contribution which, apparently, was worth "fuck all" and was "piss poor" is currently featured in the article. It was cited (by me) and must have passed some scrutiny to remain in the article. Right?

Doubtless these inconvenient facts will do little to change your mind regarding my block. But at least show a little consistency with regards to personal attacks and use of profanities. The truth is, Rodhullandemu began all this anomosity between him and I and it all goes back to this. I'm sure this constitutes a personal attack, especially as I've since been vindicated regarding our feud (ie; I was 100% correct; he was not). So at least issue him with a warning regarding his aggressive conduct. That would be the civil thing to do. King of Mercia (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodullandemu - I'm coming for ya!

You Jewish fuck. I'm gonna find you and hurt you real bad. You reckon cyber threats don't bother you? I guess the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. You see Rod, with the info I'm busily collating about you ( don't you just love archive pages?), you shouldn't be too hard to find; especially as my IT buddy tells me you're about one hour's drive away down south. He's using his gadgets and software to give me a more accurate reading. Armed with the info I've got on you, about a monkey on a private dick will get the job done (thanks for the recent photo too, you ugly Jewish fag).

Unfortunately for you, I'm not a spotty adolescent on the other side of the pond. I'm here, in blighty and believe me you fascist cunt, you're in trouble. Hopefully I'll find you at an AFL demo soon? You never know my luck. ROFL! A prick like you wont pose any danger: A 57 year old who's in bad health? LOL! I've probably tackled birds more difficult than a cocksucking fascist schmuck like you. On incapacity benefit are we? Yeah, I know things about you, sonny. Like I said, you're in so much danger it ain't even funny. I'm gonna cut you. Your bully boy tactics have really fucked things up for you. You've forgotten you're dealing with real people on here who wont tolerate bullies; especially ones who hide behind the security of a keyboard. But like you say, cyber threats don't worry you. Right?

Well, must dash. I've got archives to trawl through. And I hope for your sake there aren't any copies of 'The York Quiz Book' still in circulation; because then I'll know your name, wont I? XD Still, I get the feeling I wont need a shitty little quiz book to find out just who you are. The way you like to boast about your sad little life, I'm sure I'll find out soon enough. You've fucked with the wrong bloke this time. Please believe me. You're going to bleed. And then some. See U soon!

Your Talk page and email access are now blocked, on the basis of previous edits and the above. Had you shown that you realised that your edits were in breach of policy, you might have stood a chance (although not, perhaps, a reasonable one), of being unblocked. As it is, your threats don't frighten me in the slightest. Although I am prepared to give a little leeway for your anger, it is only a real coward who will issue such threats from behind the comfort of a keyboard, and you are lucky if I don't report you to the police. Meanwhile, I will leave this edit here in case you feel the need to start another account here; because if you do, it will be detected. This charade is over, and you've lost the game. Rodhull andemu 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now received your emails. If you wish to appeal your block, you'll now have to do so to the Arbitration Committee. Please see WP:GAB for how to do that. However, if you do that, I will make your emails available to them, not that I think I will need to do so. Rodhull andemu 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]