Welcome!

Hello, Huckelbarry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~ Peas on Earth ~ (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huckelbarry: Could you explain why you have appropriated User:Kansas Bear's userpage? Please pardon my lack of good faith, but I am having a difficult time believing that you two share that much in common. Aramgar (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread our page on personal attacks and kindly refrain from referring to other editors as shameful or as "rats", as you did here: [1] Kafka Liz (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont hurt anybody, but deleting my post in your talk page with your fake profile is not the solution.--Huckelbarry (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I deleted your post. If you continue posting attacks you will be blocked. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huckelbarry, if you are a historian, can you go about you historical business without calling people rats. Wikipedia tries to stay neutral and WP:NPOV, but you seem held bent on avoiding both of these. If you disagree with an editor, use argument, sources and logic, not cheap insults. Nobody respects that, and if you continue the way you are going, you'll find your career here short. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you editings is very aggressive and childish, you seem to be targeting these editors rather than anything factually concrete. Nobody could think that the term rat is not insulting; don't plead the fool. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but you may look their works too. what would you do when someone(2 people) always attack reliable sources which are important for you and for your nation. i didnt know the term "rat" is insulting, its not using as an attacking word in my language. sorry.--Huckelbarry (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point. If your sources are discredited, then look for better sources, not kick against other editors. Ie dont be a child. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks warning[edit]

Huckelbarry - Your claim that you didn't know that the term "rat" is insulting is not credible. I have known and worked with numerous native Turks, the term is as insulting in Turkish as it is in English.

Wikipedia's community has standards for how people behave towards one another. We expect that all editors will be adult, edit in a constructive manner, and particularly will not make personal attacks or extremely rude comments towards one another.

You have done that with two users. Your excuse that you didn't know it was offensive is simply not believable.

Please read out policies on constructive and civil editing and avoiding personal attacks. When people are rude, it damages the community in two ways. It makes the quality of the discussions around the personal attacks lower, less able to discuss facts and express opinions and improve the Encyclopedia. They also will over time drive away people who do not wish to participate in a hostile or abusive environment, losing all their future potential contributions forever.

What you did recently was not good conduct. We expect better. I hope that you can move past your recent hostile edits and participate in a more friendly and constructive manner from now on. The community hopes and expects that people will try and get along with each other, being constructive and respectful even of people you disagree with on matters of fact or opinion.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are falsified. The book in question does not refer to Attila the Hun as a Khagan. The sources you cite may be reliable in their own right, but they do not support your changes. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you read it? no. now do you want to vandalise that book's original copy? yes.--Huckelbarry (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it, and Kafka Liz is right. The closest that it comes is pp 104 -

"...Nothing would have been a more promising means of raising one's social status as participation in a victorious campaign at the side of Attila or a khagan, with its chance of sharing in the subsequent gifts of a prince."

That doesn't call Attila a Khagan. Mentioning him and them in the same sentence is not a label.

Misrepresenting sources on Wikipedia is a form of academic fraud - this is very serious. Several of your other contributions appear unsupported by your supplied references. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huckelbarry. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Huckelbarry. Thank you.

I have blocked you for 31 hours for tendentious and disruptive editing. If you want to stay on in this project afterwards, you will need to reconsider your whole attitude to editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]