User talk:Young Zaphod

Welcome!

Hello, Young Zaphod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

online creation

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jlambert 18:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiMUD

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jlambert 18:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npa

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

Comment on content, not on the contributor
Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Note that you may be blocked for disruption.. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,

Sockpuppets

Hello. You may not be aware that using a sockpuppet is considered poor form and is not allowed on voting and such. It appears you are using sockpuppets on this AfD. Ifnord 03:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiMUD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online creation. As this is (at least) your second and third possible violation after Ifnord's scolding, I'm filing an RfC.-Karnesky 11:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD notices

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Rhobite 04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No nonsense, please (adding made-up words to Nimud)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ifnord

There's nothing wrong with Vabungula. Young Zaphod 17:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

As promised, I filed an RfC. Please respond to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod. --Karnesky 12:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, Young Zaphod, thaty you stop treating Wikipedia like a game. If you carry on as you are, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You clearly have a lot to say, please say it neutrally and factually, and keep the nonsense for your user page. And drop the attacks altogether. Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia MUD

Paranoia MUD has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Online_creation

I've blocked you and your socks [1] for WP:3RR and WP:SOCK on Online_creation. Please discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Connolley,

Atari2600tim, Ehheh and possibly other anonymous sock puppets have been undermining the accuracy of the article for several months. Even with proof that a release date was discovered for the software in 1993, they still continue to write "July 29, 1994" despite evidence to the contrary. This on-going date issue is unresolved, and according to the "reasons" behind this continued date issue. Now it seems to be the trend of Atari2600tim, Ehheh, Jlambert, et al, to continually argue that even though evidence of a date of release was discovered to be in 1993, they continue to assert that it is in fact in 1994. There is no reasoning with them in the discussion area, and they are violating policy themselves. I recommend you perminently ban Atari2600tim, Ehheh, jlambert and myself from the article and change the date in question to the evidential date of December 31st, 1993, which 'ehheh' argues is technically in 1994. AND I might add, there is sufficient evidence that the date was even earlier, possibly as early as May 1993. They are no longer interested in accuracy and, instead, are simply attacking irrationally any attempts to argue to the contrary, sometimes citing equally erroneous statements and making hypocritical statements to the contrary. I do not appreciate their veiled attempts at slander and I hope they get what they deserve in real life.

It disheartens me to see the software being lied about, especially since one of the authors is no longer living and cannot defend himself.

I'm not going to get involved in the content dispute. But I'm pleased to see you finally taking this seriously: its no longer all in good fun, perhaps? William M. Connolley 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it seriously since the beginning, Mr. Connolley. You people have a wierd way of arbitrating witch-hunts. Choke on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Young_Zaphod (talk • contribs)

William's actually been just as generous as all the editors have been, (even moreso, having done only 24h for a repeat offense). Thanking him would probably be more appropriate. I'm guessing that comments like this might discourage him from keeping the blocks down at such a short length of time when your next 3rr violation report inevitably happens in a week or two. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atari2600tim, I hope you go to jail and get fucked in the ass with a meat cleaver for your slanderous commentary. There is no proof that the author has stated anything and putting that into the article is rubbish. GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Ehheh 20:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I've extended the block to 1 week for gross incivility. William M. Connolley 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you choke on a pretzel for your unprovable commentary. Young Zaphod 23:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could make it a fortnight if you really want William M. Connolley 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I want, Mr. Connelley, is for you to do your job and ban Ehheh and JLambert, who are obvious sock puppets, from editing this article. Young Zaphod 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they are obvious socks, then please supply evidence William M. Connolley 11:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]