User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B

April 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Talk:Timothy Leary— because it appeared to be uncivil towards another editor. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The edit was not simply uncivil. It was a blatant personal attack, violating WP:NPA. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you're new, so I know you're just learning what you can and cannot do here on WP. But FKC is correct, that you cannot call people names or make what we refer to as personal attacks. You have to find some other way to state your views within the guidelines. To avoid a block, I recommend you acknowledge that you now realize your remarks were unhelpful and you will not do it again. Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I probably spent a half hour typing a response and I wasn't even able to send it, oh well :). I really don't care whether i'm banned or not, somebody had to say what I said. I don't care how the rules are being interpreted calling someone a hypocrite when that person is being hypocritical is only criticism not a "personal attack". FKC accuses people of breaking the rules for the most trivial and mundane reasons such as simple disagreemeent or criticism of his bureaucratic authoritarian style of editing. After 6 days it gets really old.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your frustration. Most of the time, it's a lot of fun to contribute here on WP. Most of the time, the debates are pretty good-natured and you can expect that when you present your sources and they conform to the guidelines, other editors will graciously concede, just as they would expect you to do if the situation were reversed. We all like being right but more important here is maintaining a collegial and structured environment where we can all cooperate on an interesting intellectual project focusing on reporting only just exactly what we can document according to our guidelines. I think it's fun, I enjoy doing this, I learn something every day, I really love the intellectual honesty you see most of the time. I think you will like it, too, and I hope you don't give up on the project.

The problem, as you've discovered, is that not everyone is so nice or quite so ready to give up their ego. The thing to watch out for, especially when you're new, is getting into a fight with actually likes fighting and has been boning up for years on how to do it and stay just within the lines, provoking you into technical mistakes that he knows to avoid. FKC has almost 41K edits and he's pushed the envelope before as you can see on his block log. He knows exactly what he can get away with and he knows you don't and he wants you out. His strategy is to try to get under your skin and cause you to make a mistake. Please don't take the bait.

FKC isn't going to win this. There is no way that with 7 WP:RS identifying Leary as a philosopher that he possibly keep that out of the article. Worst case, it will take a while to resolve, perhaps with a trip the WP:RSN or something like that. The ONLY way FKC can win is by provoking everyone else into mistakes, where the biggest mistakes are violating WP:3RR and letting someone annoy you to the point that you give them a piece of your mind in some way that you can't do here. I don't have anywhere near as many edits as FKC but I have enough that he's not going to trip me up and OpenFuture obviously knows his way around as well and FKC won't trip him up, either. Please don't let him trip you.

I really do care that new editors should get a welcoming experience and I'm sorry you did not get that. I hope you will stay around. It isn't always like this. I hope this helps. Msnicki (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you have been extremely helpful.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you'll trust me enough to reconsider my suggestion. You never have to apologize for your opinions here on WP. You are allowed to think whatever you like about another editor. You just can't post every opinion. What I suggest is that you add a simple post to the WP:ANI thread stating that as a new editor, you simply didn't appreciate the significance of our guidelines defining what is or is not a personal attack. But you've now read WP:NPA and you intend to follow it carefully. (Or pick your own words.) The moment you say you won't do it again, they CANNOT block you — until and unless you do it again. (This is how the rules work, okay?) And then trust me some more that this will resolve. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd add that most of the time, you can really let someone know what you think, you just have to choose your words to get it in under our guidelines. There's a bit of a game here if you're at all into language and semantics. For example, you can't say, "You're stupid." But you can say, "Every argument you've offered is stupid and here's why ...". You can't say, "You're a hypocrite." But you can say, "Your complaint is hypocritical because you've been doing the same thing." You can't say, "You lied." But you can say, "Every claim you've made is false." You can go right up to but you simply cannot cross the line into characterizing the person who you believe has made stupid arguments, hypocritical complaints or false claims. But most people will probably figure out what you're really thinking anyway. Msnicki (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with what your saying, but by the time I read your reply I was already blocked.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's too late to avoid a block but not too late to get unblocked and move on. Please read the page at WP:GAB and then post a short statement using the {{unblock}} template explaining that you are new, you did not appreciate the significance of the rules, you have since read WP:NPA (and be sure you have), you now recognize that your posts failed to comply with the guidelines but that you are committed to following them in the future (and then be sure you do follow them.) Do not argue about whether the block was deserved or whether "he started it"; realistically, that never works and nobody cares. Stay on topic that you've been blocked for personal attacks and concede they have the goods on you because they do.

Blocks are to meant to stop bad behavior but are not supposed to be punitive. If you are clear in your intent to follow the rules, they are are supposed to unblock you upon request. Please note that no matter what anyone says, you do not have to actually apologize. You are entitled to your opinion. No one can demand that you say you're "sorry" (especially as that's probably not even true), only that you realize why your posts did not comply with the guidelines and that you promise to comply in the future. Msnicki (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Laber□^T 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

You never got welcomed and you should have been. But also, there's a really good suggestion in this template that you create an account. One possible benefit is that it may make your life easier with the occasional difficult person who may question your intent to look more like a permanent resident who's not going away. Msnicki (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Timothy Leary. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Msnicki (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fences&Windows 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attacks at Talk:Timothy Leary have escalated over several days, and I see no reason to believe you are going to change this approach. You had plenty of opportunity to apologise and acknowledge that insulting and swearing at other editors is not OK, and you did not. Fences&Windows

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).

2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please excuse me for my disruptive behavior, I am new to wikipedia and I did not fully appreciate the significance of the rules. I have previously read WP:NPA and I now realize that my posts failed to comply with the guidelines and I will be very committed to following them in the future.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I fail to see how ignorance of our rules explains your comment "Shove it your ass you fucking moron". This is not a case of you not realizing what the rules are, this is a case of you being nasty and abusive to our volunteers. 1 week is a good amount of time for you to consider what it means to work with other people in a collaborative environment. HighInBC 02:53, 3 April 2016 (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.

Whatever man, I basically just fed you a line of bullshit anyway.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, I can tell. You just saved me from having to write a detailed response to Msnicki, thank you. HighInBC 03:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. [1], [2]. Msnicki (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PACT EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't save you from having to do anything.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Actually, you did. Click the links I gave you. I went out on a limb for you and then you sawed it off. Msnicki (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked you to defend me, but after seeing just how bureaucratic wikipedia is I really stopped caring whether i'm banned or not. It's not surprising that wikipedia puts administrative procedure above honesty and common sense. 2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That *would* be a surprise, but it doesn't. The procedure are the result of honesty and common sense. Not attacking people is a part of that. Once you see that, welcome back. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have much common sense if it considers accusing someone of hypocrisy to be a "personal attack". 2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hypocrite" is mild and alone wouldn't warrant action, though it's better not to make such comments. "WikiPedant" is insulting and shows an obvious lack of respect for the other editor - name-calling is unnecessary. "Fucking moron"... I don't need to explain. Whatever the rights and wrongs of your other points, insulting and belittling other editors is not OK and no amount of complaining about bureaucracy is going to change that. We don't need to be sweetness and light the whole time, but if you're willing to at least toe the line of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL then you'll get on better. Fences&Windows 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPedant is another editor's username. What does WikiPedant have to do with me being blocked from wikipedia? Only a bureaucratic institution such as wikipedia would consider saying someone is excessively concerned with minor details and rules to be a disrespectful insult and a "personal attack".2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aldous Huxley

Please stop restoring the claim that Aldous Huxley's occupation was "philosopher." The claim is factually incorrect, as noted on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC) I think Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley's infoboxes need to be reconstructed considering philosophy really isn't much of an occupation anyway. I doubt Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle ever recieved payment for their ideas. You won't find a list of occupations on any of their articles, so why should there be a list on Huxley's or Leary's? Also, I don't see how you could argue that they were not philosophers just because you disagree with their views on psychedelic drugs.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HighInBC 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am new to wikipedia so I don't understand all the rules and guidelines. I reverted FreeKnowlageCreator's deletion of the word philosopher under Aldous Huxley's list of occupations as this editor has continuously edit warred to remove it without any consensus to do so. My edit was entirely constructive and in no way was it disruptive.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am new to wikipedia so I don't understand all the rules and guidelines. I reverted FreeKnowlageCreator's deletion of the word philosopher under Aldous Huxley's list of occupations as this editor has continuously edit warred to remove it without any consensus to do so. My edit was entirely constructive and in no way was it disruptive. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am new to wikipedia so I don't understand all the rules and guidelines. I reverted FreeKnowlageCreator's deletion of the word philosopher under Aldous Huxley's list of occupations as this editor has continuously edit warred to remove it without any consensus to do so. My edit was entirely constructive and in no way was it disruptive. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am new to wikipedia so I don't understand all the rules and guidelines. I reverted FreeKnowlageCreator's deletion of the word philosopher under Aldous Huxley's list of occupations as this editor has continuously edit warred to remove it without any consensus to do so. My edit was entirely constructive and in no way was it disruptive. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I suggest that you consider revising your unblock request, if you really want to be unblocked. Unblock requests are not for solving content disputes, or making complaints about other users, and nor have you got the template working properly. Incidentally, the issue at Aldous Huxley is not whether Huxley was a "philosopher", but whether that was his occupation. It seems clear that it was not; Huxley was never employed as a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was a self employed philosopher, he wrote several books on philosophy for which he did make money off of. Philosophy was his occupation.76.188.207.154 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would do better to discuss the issue at Talk:Aldous Huxley. However, my view would be that writing books about philosophy no more means that someone is employed as a philosopher than writing books about electrical engineering means that they are employed as an electrical engineer. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is pointless because philosophy isn't really an occupation anyway. Almost none of the greatest philosophers of all time were ever paid for their ideas.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that "philosopher" is not an occupation, then please do not edit infoboxes to show "philosopher" as someone's occupation, thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.