User talk:Winnerex

Welcome

Hello, Winnerex, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winnerex, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Winnerex!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Neil deGrasse Tyson was changed by Winnerex (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951922 on 2014-03-01T03:33:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Neil deGrasse Tyson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.

A person with a PhD degree in something can't be called "self-proclaimed". Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet an "Astrophysicist" with a PhD is allowed to make false claims about the subject on national television? Surely there is a divide on how to properly address Neil Tyson. He firmly believes "the universe emerged from a point smaller than a single atom." That is a direct quote. Tell me any astronomer, astrologist, astrophysicist, or physicist that would validate that claim. It goes against the very fundamentals of known physics, and it's a no-brainer why that word appears in "astroPHYSICS." He must be a self-proclaimed "astrophysicist" to hold such an inherently flawed belief. To the matter of him being a comedian somehow being my own personal view, I offer you the challenge of finding a YouTube video of Neil Tyson where he isn't joking and smiling and making the audience laugh when he appears at debates or interviews. He is a comedian. Winnerex (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree, in part. A person with a PhD degree in something can be called a self-proclaimed "something else". For example, a PhD in nutrition does not qualify one to be an expert in medicine, but such a person could be (and I can name a number who are correctly) called a "self-proclaimed" expert in medicine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to say that I will not block you if you repeat the type of edit referred to here, which, if not vandalism, is extraordinarily stupid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

constructive edits are stupid now? Right, gotcha. Thanks for the tip. Winnerex (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, none of your edits (so far) are constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not only just your opinion, but also a creepy one considering you've practically been stalking me watching my edits and commenting on my page. If the only definition for what merits a constructive edit is whether or not it gets rolled back, then I can't affirm you as anything but a self-entitled vandal. Winnerex (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've been watching your edits. Once I see an editor making inappropriate or non-constructive edits, I check other edits made by that editor. If I had found a constructive edit, I would have said so. I haven't. Some of your edits are not actively destructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wasn't clear, but unless your next edit of my talk page is explaining how I can block you from making future edits, then I'm not expecting any further communication. You continue harassing me and I will report you to a sysop. Winnerex (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some additional clarity; if you continue your disruptive edits, you'll be the one getting blocked. Given the way this new account has "jumped into the fire," (attacking experienced editors with little provocation) you're most likely a sock of a banned user. If anyone can give me some WP:DUCK evidence, I'll gladly block now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

attacking? You're absolutely crazy. He's the one attacking me, reverting my edits and posting vandalism accusations on my page. I've done nothing wrong. No wonder there's so much misinformation on Wikipedia, just ban any and every one who tries to contribute! Winnerex (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling, or not being able to contribute constructively (not quite sure which one). 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. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Reporting user harassment from "Arthur Rubin" and accusatory bully mentality from administrator "OhNoItsJamie"

Arthur Rubin has rolled back and reverted my edits and placed copy/pasted vandalism claims on my page which I disputed. He continued to harass me and I warned him I would contact an administrator if he continued. He didn't post any more, but then I get an accusatory and threatening comment on my talk page from administrator OhNoItsJamie which seems to be Arthur's own preemptive strike. I'm making this section in hopes of reporting administrator abuse by not only threatening and accusing me, but also encouraging user abuse by attacking me when I've done nothing wrong. Their issues can be seen on my talk page. Winnerex (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can help your case, Winnerex, and make the admins' job easier if you provided specific "diffs" (linked evidence) that support your allegations. If you make them search to find out where and what the problems are, I think they are less likely to take action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized Neil deGrasse Tyson, pure and simple. Three different editors have pointed this out to you (besides ClueBot), and I'm number four. No jibber-jabber about being attacked (you weren't) and "oh no wonder Wikipedia is so bad" is going to alter the fact that you committed a violation of our BLP policy, and I'll leave it at that. (Liz, there is nothing to prove here.) Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have looked through all of your edits; other than the ones on this page, all are either vandalisms or are otherwise non-contributory. Nor do I see any evidence of harassment or threat from administrators, although they have attempted to warn you about your behavior here, which in my opinion is disruptive, as you have been accused of.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:16, 4 March 2014 (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.

I haven't made a page edit since, and all other action towards me has been uncalled for and abusive. Regardless of redundant user-crafted policies, OhNoItsJamie's unprovoked accusation towards me seemed like an obvious case of Arthur Rubin reporting me after I explicitly asked him to cease harassing me, which was already days after my most recent edit. I'm reporting sketchy administrative work where I see it and calling it how it is. I also did not vandalize Neil Degrasse Tyson's page. I made no inflammatory or defaming remarks, and I only added the extra identifier of him as a comedian while changing his title of "Astrophysicist" to "self-proclaimed astrophysicist," as he does indeed claim to be an astrophysicist yet have little to no working knowledge on the subject. It's important to not spread misinformation by reading his page and assuming he is an actual astrophysicist. He's merely a popular-science personality. Winnerex (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just blocked and even prevented from editing my own talk page, against the Administrator's suggestion that I reply on my talk page to appeal the block. What has turned into one administrator supporting user abuse has become a gross abuse of power on part of multiple administrators. If this isn't the Wikipedia Editor mentality then it's too bad there isn't an example in better light. I have done nothing wrong and was banned on the grounds of reporting user and admin abuse that is obviously apparent here on my page and no where else. They came to my page an attacked me. They reverted my edits. And now they've blocked me from editing even my own talk page despite explicitly encouraging me to respond on my own talk page to appeal. This is a gross abuse of power across multiple administrators accounts. Winnerex (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worse yet, my report on the administrator abuse reporting form has been forcibly removed by someone who isn't me in effort to cover up this gross abuse of power. The Wikipedia Foundation and editors involved should be absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Winnerex (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first few posts here are copy pasted from the original abuse report which has been deleted by someone else. This is all the necessary proof. Winnerex (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The posts in the appeal box are what were on the original report form, whereafter I was immediately blocked from arguing and unable to reply while my report was removed by another user from the page. The immediate post after the appeal box was to be my reply, yet when I went to save the page and add the reply I'd discovered I was blocked. This block is absolutely unecessary and an obscene abuse of power against user privileges. Winnerex (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Really, Anthony? I did no disruptive acts nor acts of vandalism. I have already stated that here on my talk page and presented myself. I was indeed actually harassed by Arthur Rubin who claimed I was making vandalism edits when I was not. He then threatened to report me to be blocked, at which point I threatened him I'd report him if he continued harassing me. This all took place after any recent edit of a public wiki article on my behalf, and I have since yet to make another edit to any article. Then the administrator OhNoItsJamie posts here on my page threatened to block me accusing me of being a sock-puppet duck, when in the very same WP:DUCK article he posts it clearly states that all are innocent until proven guilty, which is in explicit contrast to his unwarranted claim of WP:DUCK which even he is aware of when he immediately follows it up with "if anyone has any proof I'll go ahead and block." When I logged into my account this morning and read his post on my user page, I decided to report it on an administrative abuse talk article, at which point I was immediately blocked indefinitely before I even had a chance to reply while my report was removed from the page by another user. I copy and pasted it here and it was the sole content of my original unblock appeal. So to clarify, after a brief period of non-activity in editing any public articles while attempting to defuse the false claims on my talk page, I was met with an unprovoked threat and false accusation from an administrator, then upon reporting administrative abuse, I was made to suffer even more administrative abuse with an unspecified general "trolling (or I don't know)" indefinite block on my account. Winnerex (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All I had to do is review your edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson in order to find out that you indeed did vandalize that article, and massively violated our WP:BLP policies. To suggest that you did not make those edits would be false, as all edits are permanently linked to the account. You might not like or agree with an individual's views, but you have no right to attack, vandalize, or otherwise make inappropriate personal commentary D P 21:47, 4 March 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Once again I come under fire of false accusations by a a moderator. I have not denied making changes to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's page. Not were the edits I made in bad taste or otherwise incorrect or inflammatory. They were explicitly constructive edits. Surely if you actually checked the edits I made to the article you'd realize this yourself. How is adding two words to an article that accurately and objectively apply to a living persons personality and achievements somehow constitute vandalism? BLP is repeatedly cited on the basis of nothing. To be perfectly clear, my edit was actually approved and saved for about an hour when the page was locked to further prevent any edit-warring with MY edit being the saved one. Winnerex (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly disruptive and clearly a time waste. Talk page access removed. only (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (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.

Noting here that I was about to do this myself but Only beat me to it. I'm not unblocking someone who classifies this as an "explicitly constructive edit". If you absolutely feel you must spend more of your time appealing a block that will not be overturned, your final route of appeal is the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the Tyson article, you blanked Wikipedia:Fringe theories twice! Removing all of the content on an article is textbook vandalism, especially when it is done to make a point. The only way you can get unblocked at this point is if you accept responsibility for making nonconstructive edits and stop claiming abuse when the admins were just doing their job, trying to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And (while with TPA revoked, it's rather moot at this point) I might add that nobody "approved" any content (while Neil DeGrasse Tyson does have Pending Changes, you were set to have edits autoaccepted), and the page has not been "locked" since 2013 - and even if it had been, m:The Wrong Version applies, making what was on the page when it was locked irrelvant to whether or not that content was right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]