User talk:ReadTheGuidelines

Editors want to play "God"

It seems like quite a few editors on Wikipedia lately want to play "God". They think they have the right to harass and constantly undo changes by other editors because they have a longer history of editing here.

I've thoroughly read the talk page guidelines before and after leaving comments on a talk page. My original intention was to remove my talk page comments on another talk page once the goal was achieved regarding some information on the related user page. I can understand all of the "Gods" out there with their point of not removing my own talk page edits. However, according to the talk page guidelines the basic rule of editing is to not edit or delete the comments of other editors. And regarding my own edits, it is recommended to not remove them but if I do choose to remove them I should state that I removed them and leave a signature.

If Wikipedia editors want exclusive control over talk page comments, then that needs to be stated up front. Wikipedia is doing a disservice by allowing the "God" editors to lock out accounts and prevent individuals from removing their own talk page comments.

A deal is a deal, and I am following the guidelines that were present when I made my talk page comments. There are nothing wrong with my comments, but ultimately I have the right to remove them. "God" needs to go back and "Read the Guidelines". --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ReadTheGuidelines, I am concerned that the statement above, which contains "If I need to pursue civil action in order to get this aspect of Wikipedia changed I will do that.", might be perceived as a legal threat. Wikipedia takes these sorts of things seriously, I urge you to remove that statement as soon as possible. Zad68 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Talk:Dick Dale. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. GB fan 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:GB you should contact the editor that has been causing the problem User:Binksternet. Those were my comments that I removed, and under the guidelines he has no right to edit my own comments.

He isn't editing them he is just restoring them so that the conversation makes sense. You are edit warring and if you do not stop you will be blocked. GB fan 02:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats abuse of the guidelines of wikipedia by letting another editor edit my comments. You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 Hours for edit warring. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. GB fan 02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got the message User:Beyond My Ken, so stop criticizing others and go Read the Guidelines since you don't seem to understand them at all. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right... I've been here for 8 years, have over 120,000 edits, and have written a fairly perceptive (if I say so myself) exegesis on Wikipedia's faults and foibles, but you know the guidelines, and I don't. Ever think that you might be just a little full of yourself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be positive here User:Beyond My Ken , you're a fantastic editor, you have what, 120 million edits? Wow, thats just incredible. You're a great writer too, and you are definitely not full of yourself, at least I don't think you are, and that must count for something. And you have a great job of knowing the guidelines, you must know them back and forth, up and down. I surely wouldn't know half the guidelines you know. Hopefully one day I will know the guidelines too as good as you do. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gee, RTG, if I didn't think you were completely and utterly full of horse manure when you made those remarks I would thank you, but instead, all I can say is Vaya con dios, as the sun sinks in the west over your editing career. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to those observing - definitely a troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, RTG! Hey, it looks like I might have a bright editing future after all... Hi everybody, Johnny's home!--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that editors who are here to improve the encycylopedia, but simply get caught by the complexities of our rules are, at this point, asking with a certain degree of humility to be allowed to edit again. And then there are the deliberate trolls, who use their talk page access while blocked to fuck around. Obviously, this editor is of the second type. Given that many admins are more forgiving than I am, I don't believe that ReadTheGuidelines will be indef blocked immediately, but I definitely see one in his future, as a person who is without any doubt WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is instead your typical (and quite boring) Wikipedia troll, probably a blocked editor come back for another go-round. (I could be wrong about that, blocked editors have to start somewhere, so perhaps this person is simply a wannabee troll. In any case, they'll be indef blocked before long.) Beyond My Ken (talk)

User:Beyond My Ken you should check out the movie "Troll Hunter", its really good. I'll read you a quote from one of the reviews "It's so steeped in troll and paranoia lore, it risks boring you with the details at times. But it also makes you more inclined to believe it, and the frights are real enough." It is good, really good! Check it out, i think its on Rotten Tomatoes.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever comment. However, what's interesting to me is that every clever zinger you post simply reinforces my point that you're not some poor downtrodden newbie caught up in the wringer of difficult-to-understand Wikipedia rules and policies, but instead a deliberate provacateur who has come here to cause trouble and create a nuisance. So, please, do your best and serve up another bon mot of cleverness, it only helps to move you that much closer to being indef blocked (a state I'm sure your other accounts are already in). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, no thanks User:Beyond My Ken. I started posting around the end of last year just to clarify one article. Its funny that you and maybe others really believe I have all kinds of posts out there somewhere. I'm not happy with the way this works, this whole system of editors needs serious help, seriously. Stupid accusations and so forth. I'm done with this, you won't be hearing from me again. I only opened an account to make my point after I was not allowed to remove my comments. A friend suggested I edit the article because I had some specific knowledge of the truth. I posted as truthful as I could on the article without giving out someones personal information. And this is where it ended. I will keep my account open and this page will stay up, but you won't hear from me again. Good luck with your Troll Hunting, I hope you find a real one out there somewhere next time, sorry to disappoint. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but you won't hear from me again. That's fine. You're not a good match for Wikipedia, since you can't see beyond your own self-interest to what's best for the project. Don't let the door slam behind you when you leave. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Guidelines

The talk page guidelines need to be changed. There are so many inaccurate representations of what a talk page is. I've been blocked from editing on Wikipedia because I tried to remove the only three comments that I ever made on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they were on a talk page. This is totally uncalled for and needs to be changed. Look, if you're going to have guidelines, then follow them! This is a disgrace and needs to be looked into further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

You may have been mislead by Wikipedia's slogan that it is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It's true that everyone can edit it, but it's also true that not everyone is cut out to edit it. Only those who can collaborate and behave in a collegial fashion with other editors are really suited for editing here. Those who insist on standing on their "rights" (despite the fact that as a privately-owned website, no one has any "rights" other than those ceded by the owner of the site, the Wikimedia Foundation), or who put their own concerns above the task of building an encyclopedia, had best be on their way, because they will not be successful here. You have, in the short time I have observed you, consistently put what you want above the established procedures and mores of this place, and that, fundamentally, is why you were blocked from editing. Unless you dial it down and start to edit for the good of the project, instead of for your desires, you will never be a successful Wikipedia editor.

~~The choice is yours.~~ Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made the remarks above before I realized how utterly trollish you were, so I'll just wave "bye-bye" instead as your Wikipedia career (at least under this name) sinks slowly into the west. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your day job big guy, leave the comedy to us Gods--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to troll including abuse of talk page access while blocked. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]