User talk:Flatcurve

Pole Corn

I have again redirected this article to Corn on the cob which was the existing article. There is no point having two articles about the same thing - that's what redirects are for. If you revert back, it will be tantamount to vandalism. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the edit history and it was your undoing of the redirection that I reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukexpat

please stop editing my talk page. kthx. Flatcurve (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to edit your talk page when necessary. If you stopped vandalising, making personal attacks etc, all these warnings would not be necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

well, by the power of greyskull, you have the power, homie. If this is what helps you cope with being a cuckold, by all means.Flatcurve (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KnightLago (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can remove it if you want, but heed its warning. KnightLago (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Taken from the Wikipedia page on vandalism:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

So I ask you, oh wise one from Oxford, is a misguided decision to revert a redirect still considered tantamount to vandalism? It was an honest mistake and you saw fit to sling accusations of misdeeds. You'll never become an admin unless you learn how to take a lighter approach. Flatcurve (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

KnightLago

You too, buddy. You're complaining about something that isn't even there any more. Go outside, take a deep breath, enjoy some fresh air, and then relax. Flatcurve (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

This is your last warning, continue the trolling and I will block you. KnightLago (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I troll my own page? Seriously lame. Flatcurve (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

Flatcurve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What has been vandalized? This is an abuse of power. This could have all been avoided if ukexpat had just approached me like an adult and told me why he felt a redirect was necessary rather than talking down to me. I suppose if I had spent a small fortune on an education from a place like Oxford he might respect me.

Decline reason:

Not only are the personal attacks going to make your case worse, the evidence below show that the block was deserved. — Soxπed93^(blag) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

I believe the block has more to do with your inappropriate personal attacks ("your face...", "can you take that stick out or is it just stuck in there permanently?", "cuckold", "nothing better to contribute to society", this lovely bit of vandalism, etc). On the one hand, I don't feel there was any particular need for these users to keep hounding you; on the other hand, your attitude does not seem to be one that's interested in working on a collaborative project. Much better to remain civil and work through the dispute resolution process. This block is a temporary one, bear in mind; may be best to start fresh, tomorrow? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take responsibility for the personal attacks, but bear in mind that they were all responses to threats of being banned for making one single edit that was reverted within minutes anyway. I was accused of vandalism right off the bat when all I did was make a mistake. ukexpat and KnightLago continued to blow the situation out of proportion and hurl threats at me for edits I made to my own talk page. Editing one's own talk page I think falls WAY outside the definition of vandalism. I am definitely interested in productively contributing to wikipedia. However I'm afraid that users like these are so deeply entrenched in the system that if anybody they don't like comes along, it turns into a threat-down. This is one of the glaringly obvious problems with this "objective" site that I have seen thus far. Flatcurve (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a community is only as good as the users comprising it. I've had similar experiences joining many web communities; unfortunately, many people interested in keeping order eventually come to see many or even all unknown users as potential threats, rather than the assets they are... and just as unfortunately, many troublemakers out there reinforce the idea. For now, I've left both Ukexpat and KnightLago brief notes about their involvement. Perhaps I'll see you editing tomorrow? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets face facts here. This, this, this, and this all occurred before my initial warning. I didn't even care at that point that you were arguing with Ukexpat‎. I just warned you and left him a note to knock it off. But then you continued. Here, here, here, here, and here. Somewhere in there I left you the final warning note. You responded with this. And then this. All you had to do was to heed the first warning and drop it, but you continued and this block is the result. KnightLago (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah... I should have left that last one up instead of deleting it. Oh wait, yeah I deleted that. In fact half of that stuff was deleted by me. Flatcurve (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This all did get a little out of hand and I will accept some responsibility for that. I did however explain why the redirect was appropriate and from looking at the Corn on the cob article, it is pretty clear why it is appropriate. I did not accuse you of vandalism, I said if you did it again it would be tantamount to vandalism. To leap from that to vandalism and other such nonsense on my talk page and basically accusing me of being an intellectual snob is clearly inappropriate. All that being said, I don't want to see anyone blocked if they are prepared to contribute constructively to the project. So let's let calmer heads prevail, draw a line under this one and move on. – ukexpat (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)