To find out who is changing your edits, click on the "History" tab at the top of the page. As for the Moderation article, it appears to be done by User:Violetriga, an admin who has been known to abuse her powers from time to time. Anyway, I've posted a comment on Moderation's talk page regarding this issue. Kurt Weber 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Your test
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. – ClockworkSoul16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This image has no source information and may be deleted according to policy. If you would like to keep this, please provide accurate source information. Thanks. --LV(Dark Mark)20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I trouble you to visit User:24.11.91.3 and say whether or not you are using that IP? If you are, that's fine, so long as you make it clear what you are doing. If that's not you, then whoever it is should be probably be smacked for signing as you. Regards, Ben Aveling02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I wanted to get rid of the sock box. May I suggest that you go and replace what I've written with something in the first person? If you are the only person who uses that address you might like to redirect its pages to here. Unless it's a shared address, there isn't really any address not to stay logged in. And if it is a shared address, who knows what who might write under your name?
And can I suggest typing a signature because you've forgotten to login is a bit not the right thing to do? If you do forget to login, the best thing to do is either login and reenter the messge, or save the message, then login and add a signature, with an edit summary saying something like 'sorry, forgot to login'. All the best, Ben Aveling11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove warnings from this page. That is considered vandalism. Thank you for cooperating. Please, stop changing signatures, at best it is uncivil.--Nomen Nescio09:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vandalize any pages. I simply warned Nescio. He has a right to warn me and yet I cannot warn him? What gives? -- VinnyCee10:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that although I'm sure you started off meaning well, you seem to have allowed yourself to have become annoyed and made some edits that qualified as vandalism. So it's legitimate to warn you. So Nescio has done nothing wrong and your warning to him about the warning he gave you was not legitimate, that is, it was vandalism. Clear? If not, feel free to ask me either here or at my talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am relatively new to WP and have not yet familirized myself with as many policies as I want to, based on your previous block (appears on your talk page) and the constant reverting of "Native"/"Indigineous" on the United States page, I would suggest continuing to discuss the issue on the Talk:United States until a consensus is reached before you change/revert "Native" to "Indigineous" again. I am neither agreeing/disagreeing with you, but it seems that controversial matters are settled much more productively (and not considered vandalism) when they are discussed rather than repeativatively reverted. //MrD904:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree, as I am also new to WP. The previous blockages have taught me a valuable lesson. I have started a request for mediation before, but I have to re-familiarize myself with those proceedings as they may have changed since I employed them last. However, the 3RR rule is easily circumvented by groups of like-minded individuals who clique-up whenever they have a POV to push here at WP.
I think that this WP stuff is the 2nd best thing since sliced bread, but if it is to be truly NPOV, then the use of derogatory terms must be abolished whenever encountered. I am here to assist in this fashion as well as contribute new and current facts to the existing entries. Thanks for the message! -- VinnyCee04:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Again, since I have no knowledge about the issue (other than what I've always been told is politically correct and have heard to be the pc term all of my life), I don't want to comment regarding it. But it just seems that even if you have "groups of like-minded individuals who clique-up whenever they have a POV to push," the only way to have your edits on that topic respected and agreed upon is to discuss it, not to "push" it every five minutes. //MrD904:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For vandalizing my talk page and continuing edit war on police state I have asked an admin to intervene. Thank you.Nomen Nescio17:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not add unwarranted warnings. Obviously you are still upset about your block but consider you are in violation of no personal attack, no edit war, et cetera. I remove it once more in the hope you will remain civil.Nomen Nescio17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say that I am not being civil when you continually remove my warnings from your talk page and then sick whatever lacky moderator that you happen to have in your back-pocket at the time onto me? You, my friend, are the one who needs to be more civil. I am going to overlook your indiscretion for the time since it is your first; but if it happens again, I will have to devote part of my life to remedying the situation posed by your incivility. -- VinnyCee20:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.
Vinny, don't be a dick. You know exactly what the problem is and why. There is an active discussion on the Talk page of police state, and you are in a minority of one. Rather than attempt the absurd and contentious edit you are pushing you would be better advised to work with other editors to strengthen the post-9/11 section, which to my mind is far too accepting of the actions of Bush, Blair and others, and reference the other contemporary examples. "Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither" as Jefferson said. Alternatively you can carry on as you are and get blocked every time. Which is more likely to achieve your desired ends? Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, do you mean by "you are in a minority of one"? I am sorry that you feel that I am a dick. Is this on of the reasons why FeloniousMonkfucked me by blocking my account based on frivilous accusations from a user that had me banned previously? I rightfully posted a warning to Nescio on his or her talk page after Nescio tried to start a second edit war with me. This lead to Nescio's anger or temper taking over the course of action by prompting the use of his or her temporarily superior Wikipedia editing and networking skills in order to unrightfully get me blocked. Don't you wonder why this user has a "spotless" talk page? Nescio continually deletes any criticism of him or her at the talk page while steadily aiming that same type of criticism at other users. -- VinnyCee19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the linked article, Vinny, and see what it says. Especially: Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood of whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) reaching the ears of your intended audience dramatically (even exponentially) diminishes. I see nobody else who considers modern-day USA to be a police state by any reasonable definition, however much they hate Shrub so the edit war was one of your making, I'd say, since you added USA to the list despite knowing full well that there is no consensus to do so. You were not blocked because of what Nescio said, or did, you were blocked because of what you did, and if Nescio had not shopped you someone else would have done. If you do it again, the same will happen again. This Talk page is not short of people telling you the same thing - have you stopped to think that we may be right? So, to reiterate what I said above, if you want to make the point that the US executive has arrogated excessive powers, a view which is widely supported (in a way that the USA being a police state is not), work with others to expand and strengthen the 9/11 section with references and hard fact. Or you could always continue pissing upwind and getting wet, I don't actually care that much, I was just offering some friendly advice. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nescio's continual harassment and persecution of myself documented
Copy of warnings Nescio removed (vandalism) from his or her talk page
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. At least I hope you were just testing posting methods. Please double check discussion pages before editing if you were not testing. Thank you. -- VinnyCee16:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone far enough. Again, do not remove warnings from this page, it is vandalism. Please try to remain civil by not resorting to attempting to incite an edit war on your own talk page. I leave your warnings (however frivolous) on my talk page, I would expect the same amount of courtesy from you. Thank you. -- VinnyCee17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. This is your last chance to conform to Wikipedia's standard of user conduct. Any, any further disruptive behavior on your part, and you will be blocked indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomen Nescio 09:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
10:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
11:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 17:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
