Welcome!
Hello, The Last Angry Man, 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! --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Your 3RR complaint
I take note that Arbcom, when unblocking you on September 8, strongly advised you to stay away from articles on Communism. Based on your recent filing at WP:AN3#User:Igny reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result: ), I would be inclined to block you for disruption. Your dispute with Igny and your 3RR report give an almost perfect example of not taking Arbcom's advice. Before I issue any new block, I'll offer you the chance to agree voluntarily to not agree any articles about Communism for three months. Let me know your answer. If not, I am likely to issue a long block and let you re-apply to Arbcom for relief. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I was advised to not edit articles over which I may have strong feelings, this is however the pedia anyone can edit right? I have broken no rules whatsoever and have explained all actions taken on article talk pages, yet I am to be blocked for disruption? I see no reason to voluntarily stop editing articles which may be related to communism as you are actually threatening to ban me if I do not comply, there is naught voluntary about that is there? I will not stop editing articles I have an interest in, I have created two articles which I am continually working upon Communist crimes against humanity and now of course Douglas Pike I was unblocked and asked to not edit certain articles, I was not banned from them. I will if you wish refrain from editing the Communist terrorism and Occupation of the Baltic States articles for a period on one month (or two if you prefer) to show I am willing to edit in a collaborative manner and am willing to heed your advise. Is that suitable to you? I would like to be able to comment on article talk pages as I have said I would rewrite the section on Malayan terrorism. If this is suitable please let me know, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd stick to the three months exclusion from Communist-related articles but you could still comment on their talk pages. You would also be restricted from using noticeboards to complain about edits at any Communist-related article for 3 months. I see no way that you could work on Communist crimes against humanity or Douglas Pike or Occupation of the Baltic States but you could work on drafting material in your own user space. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- So you are essentially topic banning me even though I have broken no rules and have used the talk pages extensively? Hardly fair is it? I will not edit the articles which are controversial, such as CT and Occupation of the Baltic states for three months as requested. I will refrain from Communist crimes against humanity for the same time period, but I will not be bullied into not being allowed to edit any article related to communism, just because Pike wrote extensively about the Vietnam war does not make it controversial and I see no issue with my expanding upon it. I will also undertake a one revert per week on any article which may be related to communism so as to show my good faith, this seems an entirely reasonable proposal to me and I should hope you feel the same way. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd stick to the three months exclusion from Communist-related articles but you could still comment on their talk pages. You would also be restricted from using noticeboards to complain about edits at any Communist-related article for 3 months. I see no way that you could work on Communist crimes against humanity or Douglas Pike or Occupation of the Baltic States but you could work on drafting material in your own user space. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment
There are no rules. I was blocked twice for making only two reverts per day. I was topic banned for making only one revert per day in a number of articles. Someone else may edit war (and he evidently did), but it is you who may be sanctioned for filing a report about him. How to deal with it? Switch to editing other articles if you are interested in the history of communism rather than in confrontation with a group of users. Biophys (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am interested in the history as well as the terrorism and political aspects of it yes, However unless Ed accepts my proposal I am to be topic banned from all articles related to communism or be banned. Lets see what Ed says and then perhaps you can point me towards some articles of interest. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I can see two problems with sanctions proposed by him. 1. You did right thing by reporting someone who edit war, no matter if it was three or four reverts per day by him. 2. Communism-related articles are not necessarily covered by "Digwuren" sanctions. Biophys (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I may need education here, what is Digwuren? Ed has not mentioned it, just that he will ban me if I do not accede to his threat. The Last Angry Man (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Normally, he can ban you like that only if your actions fall under discretionary sanctions like here, or at least this is my understanding (I am not an administrator). In fact, some your edits might indeed fall under these sanctions, but I am not making any judgement. But wait a minute ... you can not be sanctioned because no one officially warned you about the existence of these sanctions. Biophys (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting, he ought have Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines according to that The Last Angry Man (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you suppose to receive something like this. But I am not sure if you even deserved such warning at this point. Keep in mind that my warning would not count; this should be done by administrator.Biophys (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I get the strangest feeling I will now be warned of these sanctions, and then topic banned :o) Lets see what Ed has to say. And are you Hodja or Biophys? The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1. No, you must first be warned for violating a policy, and then sanctioned for another, repeated violation. But I do not see what exactly violation you did to be even warned. 2. Hodja=Biophys: I changed my username at some point when my personal emails were stolen and publicly posted at Wikileaks, my real life identity (as an anonymous user) was revealed by several users here (one of whom still continue editing and even get me topic banned and works as administrator at Commons), and defamatory postings about myself and some others appeared at the internet. But I do not really care right now. Let's WP:FORGIVE. This may be interesting only as an illustration of wikipedia problems in general. I am thinking about writing an essay about wikipedia problems, after having that much experience. Biophys (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I get the strangest feeling I will now be warned of these sanctions, and then topic banned :o) Lets see what Ed has to say. And are you Hodja or Biophys? The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you suppose to receive something like this. But I am not sure if you even deserved such warning at this point. Keep in mind that my warning would not count; this should be done by administrator.Biophys (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting, he ought have Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines according to that The Last Angry Man (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Normally, he can ban you like that only if your actions fall under discretionary sanctions like here, or at least this is my understanding (I am not an administrator). In fact, some your edits might indeed fall under these sanctions, but I am not making any judgement. But wait a minute ... you can not be sanctioned because no one officially warned you about the existence of these sanctions. Biophys (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I may need education here, what is Digwuren? Ed has not mentioned it, just that he will ban me if I do not accede to his threat. The Last Angry Man (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I can see two problems with sanctions proposed by him. 1. You did right thing by reporting someone who edit war, no matter if it was three or four reverts per day by him. 2. Communism-related articles are not necessarily covered by "Digwuren" sanctions. Biophys (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)