User talk:Negi(afk)
Hello, Negi(afk). This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Negi.28afk.29. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify here that I'm not attempting to put you under any undue stress. I've reviewed your edits, and outside of a single excursion [1], your contributions here to the main article namespace certainly seem worthwhile. The glaring exception here is your recent spate of personal attacks on your fellow editors. I don't care that you insult me; frankly I find people who insult me to be humorous (see my userpage). But, not everybody responds to being insulted in the same way. Most certainly, insulting other people detracts from the environment to which we all contribute and leads to a break down in civil discussion. It is also often the case that a person who uses uncivil commentary finds their own arguments to be considered in a less favorable light. It is important within that context for contributors to stay focused on content, and not make comments about the people adding the content, whether such content be in the mainspace or anywhere else on the project. Calling someone "white trash", for example, is wholly out of line. It adds nothing productive to the discussion at hand, but can add considerable heat. Whether it is true or not has absolutely no relevance. You might absolutely despise the editors whom you find yourself working with, but you must nevertheless treat them with civility. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have nothing but contempt for such people, and I'm merely voicing that contempt. Stupid people who know nothing about anything should be shamed into silence. I don't know why you would try to shield mental deficients whose opinions are worthless from criticism and insults?Negi(afk) (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Your edits are part of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Article Jacob Barnett and User:Negi(afk). Thank you. SoWhy 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. lifebaka++ 18:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Negi(afk) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You should unblock me because I'm gangster as fuq. Negi(afk) (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hm, let me look at the Big List of Reasons to Unblock a User...looking...Nope, sorry, "gangster as fuq" isn't on it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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.
{{unblock}},
Coming back after the block
[edit]Harry, I would like to implore you to read and understand the following. Please don't dismiss this and just plow ahead.
As you well know, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. People work in concert with each other to achieve the desired ends of the project. There are a number of policies and guidelines here, which see varying degrees of enforcement. WP:NPA, though often cited, is rarely enforced to the point where someone is blocked under that policy. Out of the last 5000 blocks spanning 5 days, only 4 other established editors (more than a few edits) have been blocked for personal attacks. This makes you 1 in 1000.
That you were blocked under this policy so rapidly should provide you with all the evidence you should need to understand the position you are in. Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial at this point. Multiple, multiple people have indicated a strong distaste for the personal insults you have launched at several editors here. Whether your elevation of the relative intelligence, racial background, or intent of the various editors you have cast aspersions upon is accurate or not is absolutely 100% irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter.
If I tell you the 15th digit to the right of the decimal of Pi is is 2, and you of course know it is 3, attacking me with vitriol telling me what a white trash idiot (or any other insult or combination of insults you prefer to use) I am, it isn't going to sway anyone. If instead you calmly note a reference showing that is in fact 3, you stand a far better chance of convincing people. You don't win debates here by bludgeoning people about the head and shoulders. Nobody cares how animated you are in support of your arguments, but people do care when that very animation leads you into such blatant violations of our WP:NPA policy.
You can't continue to edit here in the manner in which you have conducted yourself in the last day. Nobody is asking you to apologize for your comments. It's been shown many times in the past that attempting to get such concessions from anyone is pointless. So, I'm not asking for that. What I am telling you is that if after the block expires you return to editing by attacking your fellow editors, you will very, very likely be blocked again and this time probably permanently.
If your goal here is to not edit anymore, then returning with vitriol will achieve that. So would simply walking away from the project. If, instead, your goal is to edit here then you have to cease the attacks, whether you think they're valid or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hammersoft is absolutely right in this, but as a completely uninvolved party (I'd never heard of this guy before today) I'd add something more. Your anger is not coming across as a passionate defence of your dearly held opinion; it's coming across, and I'm sure wrongly, as a personal, irrational, hatred of the article subject himself. Some might interpret that as prejudice, others as jealousy, but either way it has two results: it spurs other editors into defending the article where they might have ignored the AFD otherwise, plus it could cause editors to question your sincerity in proposing the AFD, since you seem to be overly driven to get it deleted.
- You should not care whether this article is deleted or not. This article has no effect on you in any way, shape or form, and never could: whether it's there or not, your life will be the same as it always was. The article doesn't make the subject more notable, it doesn't give him any prestige or importance. It's a Wikipedia article, not a Nobel Prize. We have articles on Pokemon characters (or whatever they are). AFD is for removing articles that should be removed, but the decision about which articles "should" be removed remains with the community, not the nominator. It is perfectly okay to nominate an article that is kept: you shouldn't care one way or the other. Save your passion and emotion for things that matter, such as real life. --NellieBly (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm so set on getting the article deleted because it's been clear to me that the subject is not actually all that bright. He's being reported as the highly intelligent by some sources where the reporters don't know what they're talking about, and people who don't know anything are somehow taking personal offense whenever anyone suggests that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. His supposed computations 'disproving big bang cosmology' also sound suspiciously like creationist fakery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negi(afk) (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 April 2011
April 2011
[edit]
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Negi(afk), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but you suck at life.Negi(afk) (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- "You should unblock me because I'm gangster as fuq", funniest line I've heard in a while, almost spit out my redbull when I read that. BTW I can't seem to find negiafk on irc, my \whois command gives a null result--Mozart20d (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Negi, you know that comments like this aren't acceptable. Besides that they are likely to get you blocked again, they really don't help you make your case. I'm not going to go so far as to claim that being reasonable and civil works to solve all disputes (though it does solve many), but insulting others is a sure-fire way to prevent resolution. I ask you again to stop, so that you can actually get what you're trying to do accomplished. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unblock me!
[edit]Negi(afk) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't even do anything wrong this time. Lifebaka said that I wasn't going to be blocked, then closedmouth just blocked me. I did not do anything in the interim.
Decline reason:
Well, apart from trolling, as a look at your contributions shows. But at least you're honest about it. Since you state that "My mo is to harrass the admins by posting extraneous unblock requests on my talk page to waste their time", I am removing your talk page access to prevent you from doing so. You can direct any serious unblock request to WP:BASC. Sandstein 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
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.
- The terrible thing about unblock requests, Negi, is that they draw attention to the fact that you're blocked. As you see, this isn't always a good thing. I'm going to ask Closedmouth to clarify why he indef'd you, but I doubt anything will come of it--"trolling" is an unfortunately accurate description of what you've spent a lot of time doing. Serious unblock requests can also be directed to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, if you're not interested in going through ArbCom, though I don't know how trafficked it is. I'm also open to receiving email regarding this; you can email me via Special:EmailUser/Lifebaka. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Negi, it's not like you weren't warned. You knew very well what would happen and you chose to act in a way that would get this account blocked anyways. Regardless, you can continue editing with your already registered alternate accounts. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)