User talk:Nowa/Archive 3

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for trolling and general dickish behavior, as clearly demonstrated at ANI.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Going out of your way to add the photos to cause disruption, the snide remarks, this is all pure trolling and frankly, the community isn't here to be the butt of your joke. This kind of sheer stupidity in behavior has a parasitic effect on the time of good editors and I have zero patience for it. If it continues, an indef block will follow. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's recap shall we?

I asked for the community to reach consensus on an image that I felt belonged in the article David Horvitz. Another editor effectively deleted my edit by hiding the image I was asking for consensus on. So I restored my comment. Said editor deleted it again. I restored it again. He/she deleted it again.

Now as User:Favonian clearly pointed out to me, deleting another editor's comments is completely unacceptable!(emphasis in original) So after attempting to resolve the issue with the single editor involved, I raised the issue on ANI in a neutral and respectful manner and refrained from any further commentary.

The general consensus on ANI was that said editor was in the right. I didn't like it, but I accepted the consensus. I made no comments to the discussion, snarky or otherwise and I refrained from any further edits of the discussion on the article talk page.

But then the crowd got ugly. Somehow asking for my rights to be protected inspired them to call for my banning. Did an admin intervene? No. Did an admin point out that a discussion of my ban should be a separate discussion? No. They were content to let the mob grow.

So of course I put in a snarky comment. I have absolutely no respect for the editors involved in this ANI or the admins that were supposed to be monitoring the discussion. And truth be told? I did make a few snarky and disruptive edits over the past week or so, and I have gotten a little too wrapped up in the Horvitz issue. So a two week break would actually do me some good. Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for the snarky comment. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I must be missing something. What was I blocked for?--Nowa (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

trolling and general dickish behavior, it says so in the block template, the same thing they were complaining about at ANI. The snide comment itself didn't cause the block, however, it did make it clear that you had no intention of discontinuing the disruption, and blocks are to prevent disruption. If you come back and continue to inject those photos again, I would consider that a continuation of the original trolling, with or without snide comments Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

By “inject those photos”, do you mean edits like this? These edits from 17 July 2014 show Nowa adding such "look at me" images: diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff to eight different articles.(cited in ANI discussion)--Nowa (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the thread you started at ANI was a perfectly acceptable place to discuss a topic ban on the very issue you brought up. Hence no one intervened. Why would you think it isn't? Is there a rule somewhere that prohibits deviating from a topic in a way that the topic starter finds undesirable? Because we have the often cited WP:BOOMERANG for such instances. It would help if you aligned your notions of what is and isn't acceptable with what the community thinks is acceptable. It would have likely avoided this block.--Atlan (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to wp:boomerang. Good point. I retracted my criticisms of the admins and apologize.--Nowa (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hi Nowa, could you enable your email in your preferences? I am very surprised that you have been blocked... Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed, good to hear from you. No worries about my reputation. I fully expected a block at some point in this proceedings. I have been furious at the witch hunt against David Horvitz and was doing my best to make sure that his bio and his contributions were treated fairly.--Nowa (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And that is a form of advocacy, or righting great wrongs, which is outside of behavioral expectations here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No archiving during block?

I thought I would clean up my talk page during the block, but I see I can't edit or create an archive page. Can that be enabled or should I just wait for the block to expire? No worries either way.--Nowa (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• The software is designed so that a blocked editor can only edit their talk page and no others. It isn't something that an admin can change. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for the response.--Nowa (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

About Ryulong

Sorry for bothering you. In these days, I just heard an incredible news and wanna say the fact that I've seen. However, I think User:Ryulong treats me as an offender. He made a dirty report to slander me as a "meatpuppet". Moreover, maybe Ryulong thinks I haven't the right of speech. He reverted my speech at "17:38, 29 August 2014‎" & "17:38, 29 August 2014" directly without any reason. He treats me like what CCP dose! I seldom do contributions on English Wikipedia, thus I don't know what can I do. There's no harm to me even I was blocked on English Wikipedia, but I think Ryulong's behaviour endangers English Wikipedia. So I leave this message. --Tvb10data (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tvb10data: I am like you. I am very mad when someone says I am bad. I respond once. If someone says I am bad again, I say nothing. See wp:bait--Nowa (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not humor this user, Nowa.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: No worries. I've been following the thread.--Nowa (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop stalking my edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you find my edits upsetting. What I’m mostly trying to do is defuse the conflicts you get into with other editors. I take special care not to participate in the conflicts but rather to make constructive edits that point the way to a solution. If you feel I’ve failed to do that, please let me know.--Nowa (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you should not be following me around to pages to defuse these conflicts that you think exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll stop.--Nowa (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

Please do not pretend you have consensus when you don't. You can argue why your section is not UNDUE, etc, etc (as per my edit summary) on talk page if you want, but don't put it in the article - you know perfectly well you have no consensus. zzz (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought I had addressed your concerns.--Nowa (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My fault, then, for not being critical enough of the section. I thought I'd been clear, but maybe I hadn't (it's difficult to vehemently oppose someone's idea - repeatedly - and remain polite!) I apologise for letting you waste your time. I can't stress enough how much I oppose any mention of religion, in an article about a political protest where RS, and both sides in the dispute, overwhelmingly ignore it. Cheers zzz (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it is difficult to be polite when you vehemently oppose someone's idea. And wasting my time isn't a big issue. Working on the article is a worthy investment of time. But to be honest, I don't see why you would would oppose any mention of religion as long as it was consistent with one or more reliable sources.--Nowa (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion of my deleting trollish vandalism

Regarding: Talk:Philae_(spacecraft)#Hoax_theory.2FFringe_theory

The user that created the section was blocked for 30 hours because of this. Multiple administrators have been involved and you're giving the troll what he wants. I now have to waste my time explaining to you why you shouldn't have undone my delete.

Bill O'Reilly and Mike Savage haven't said a word about the landing being a hoax, as the troll states. NASA officials have not said it's a hoax. A Russian cosmonaut hasn't spoken up about a hoax. Literally no one has said it's a hoax.

The "hoax" is a hoax and you've been duped.

See the user's talk page, and the revision he made to it. He's clearly a troll and multiple people agree.

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Talk_page_vandalism for my attempt to get a second opinion before deleting it. sudopeople 22:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of not feeding trolls is to calmly point them to policy.--Nowa (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I cited two policies in his section. I then warned him three times, (which he acknowledged by defacing his own talk page.) That's five links to policies he undoubtedly read. I'll work on keeping calm for you though. Goosefrabba.

Maybe cool it with the rv's. Cheers. sudopeople 06:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)