Hiineedrequestforcomment

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the following before pursuing this dead-end

Please read Wikipedia:STICK. Edited 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC) by - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk.

My comments to you

You're wasting your time picking a fight. This is also considered disruptive. We all lose once in a while, but if you choose to actually make a big deal about what was obviously you vandalizing articles, you're not going to last long. Instead, please consider becoming a positive asset. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your encouragement — I will certainly strive to provide meaningful content to Wikipedia. I understand what exactly what the essay is trying to convey, but inevitably, I must ask additional questions. "If you are the only person left beating the horse after it has died, consider the possibility that you should stop." The horse has not died — the incident in question is not but one week ago. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your comments to my talk page

Regarding rights: rights as you're referring to them are easily revoked when the user violates the terms of the site and instituted policies. No one has any inherent rights in a general sense, so your assertion that you'll continue to edit Wikipedia whether administrators like it or not is inherently subject to those same administrators' interpretation of community consensus-based policy.

Your claim that you were "merely gifting users with new messages" is patently false. The editing history of your previous account show absolutely no edits to user pages, with the exception of one user, Nufy8. You sent messages to no other users at all. Your only other communications were requests to unblock, on your own user page. Your messages, posted on Three articles and two article talk pages, appeared to send people to some other IP user's talk page, 201.233.115.166 (talk · contribs). This is also not helpful. Making repetitive unhelpful edits is considered disruptive. We expect you to read messages given to you, and learn to work within them to become a beneficial member of this site. Disruption is negated by administrator action, which was appropriately applied against your previous account. It was not a permanent block.

Please consider FisherQueen's friendly advice, below. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, and friendly warning

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your recent edits, which don't appear to do anything to make the encyclopedia better. If you're interested in making the encyclopedia better, you should just pick an article that needs improving and jump right in to make yourself useful. If you aren't sure that you're familiar enough with the rules yet, just read some of the links in your welcome message above, which contains most of them. However, if your only reason for participating at Wikipedia is to engage in personal conflicts, that is going to become a problem quite quickly; accounts which engage in such conflicts are sometimes blocked, especially if looking at their contribution logs doesn't reveal evidence that their participation makes the encyclopedia better. I don't know what happened with your previous ip, but this is your fresh start, to use as you choose. I'd hate to see you blocked before you'd even gotten started. My advice is, put your conflict aside for now, and look for something useful to do. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is good advice, and phrased more politely than I was going to. I recommend following it. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please halt all further discussion ad interim. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RE "What?"

Go back and check the edit summerys. Quote: "Go Away" KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Right now what you're doing is called edit warring. Edit warring over something like fixing someone else's spelling on their own talk page is often looked at as harassment. You know he doesn't want you to fix it. If you're just here to pester him, by all means go ahead, it will all be over soon. If you're really here to build an encyclopedia, then do that somewhere other than his talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I just made my first mainspace edit! Back to the more serious subject, edit warring. Hmmm. That sounds familiar... Ok. Why are you saying "it will all be over soon"? You yourself are not an administrator, nor am I. I surely am "here to build an encyclopedia," at least my hopes are that I can fix all spelling errors, whether they be on talk pages or in articles. By doing so, I am upgrading the quality of our content. With Josh's spelling error, we are only shattering Wikipedia's public image to the media. I hope you will learn to stand from my point-of-view. Cheers to you, Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I won't be blocking you. I have been around enough to know when someone's actions are headed to where someone else will be doing the blocking. 'Grats on the first mainspace edit. If you upgrade articles by fixing spelling errors you'll be helping the encyclopedia greatly. When we've got article space free of spelling errors, we can then worry about spelling errors that people made on their own talk pages.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When spelling errors are present on my page, I can't resist correcting them, as I've done here. Pity that I can't correct edit summaries. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess we all have our own cross to bear.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Think reasonably. Per Wikipedia:Red link:

Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles.

There is no indication that the athlete's parents are notable for any reason. Given that this reasoning is on Wikipedia's official project page, and not a user's self-described opinion on the topic, I tend to follow what is generally accepted by the community consensus. Even so, Antandrus states: "Some judgment is required, of course, in inserting redlinks: consider whether the item is notable enough to merit its own article." [Italics mine.]

And I'll thank you not to lecture me. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of the record, I will post my "lecture" to you on my user page. Remember: You have no right to change it. My user page is my user page, whether you like it or not. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The record remains in the edit history of my talk page. FWIW. Have fun in your little box, here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. It seems recently you have been making a name for your self by arguing with other uses over petty subjects. My advice is to stop. I have looked over your contributions to Wikipedia and i am very impressed, keep up the good work, but try and maintain more of a neutral standing with your fellow users.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact either myself, another user or an administrator. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I utterly do not understand why this is here. What conflict of interest? I'm just having some serious concerns with unjust blocks and other editing conflicts with administrators. By the way, who are you to tell me this? I am perfectly aware of my actions on Wikipedia. I am striving to maintain order here and defeat authority. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Idle question I know, but why would you need to strive to "defeat authority" here? Dayewalker (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite idle... To answer the question, defeating authority on Wikipedia is ineluctable. I have seen many a despicable administrator. I presume you have as well. All of us will, sometime in our life. When so many administrators have abused me, what else can I do but strive to defeat them? Answer that for me, will you?

By the way, please don't follow the crowd in trying to become an administrator. You are currently not my enemy but just an innocent bystander. Please don't become one, but if you do, inevitably my wrath will follow you. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. I certainly fear your wrath, oh indefinitely blocked one. Dayewalker (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling and harassment. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the username didn't have much going for it, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I feel that this space is insufficient for what I have to say. My unblock request is below.

Decline reason:

Lots of us warned you that your edits were characteristic of someone about to be blocked, but the vast majority of your edits are disruptive, and the edit you link below is your one and only constructive edit. Considering that you were amply warned, I don't think it's necessary to unblock you- it doesn't seem that you enjoy making constructive edits nearly as much as you enjoy making drama, and Wikipedia has more than enough drama already. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2010 (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 protest not for the sake of arguing but for the sake of independence, for the sake of speech freedom, for the sake of liberty. I returned to Wikipedia with this account as I said in my first contribution that "[t]he first course of action I must take is pursue defense of my actions on my previous account". I was blocked before I had settled that matter. I had not had the chance to become a constructive editor because I was not finished with my pursuit of justice. However, cum laude I left my streak on Bode Miller to the first sentence with my only mainspace edit. My contribution to that renowned, reformed skier will prevail for many years to come. My first argument against my block is that Jpgordon, an involved administrator, blocked me. This is an utter no-no on Wikipedia — an involved administrator, who himself is the epitome of most administrators (abusive, unkind, and unjust [not a personal attack]), blocking someone he dislikes. Through my praxeological observations, I have realized that Josh clearly demonstrates cui bono. By this unjust block, Wikipedia is regressing, I daresay, regressing into the reign of terror.

I propose that this block be dealt with in one of two of the following ways:

• My block be reduced to one month, several months, or even a year. If I really am not a constructive editor, I wouldn't return. As devoted as I am, I will always strive to become useful here.
• My block be lifted. I will strive to make constructive additions to Bode Miller and other great Olympians. I will refrain from editing any talk pages so that I will not have any chance to "troll" or "harass". If I ever start trolling again, block me forthwith. After a couple months, allow me to edit talk pages again so I can work to develop mutual understanding with my fellow Wikipedians. Once I do anything you do not like, block me. How much vandalism can I inflict when at least six administrators are watching me?

My last request is that an uninvolved administrator adjudicate between Jpgordon and me. Cobaltbluetony, Accounting4Taste, Newyorkbrad, Materialscientist (for their posts on my talk page) and DoRD and Rlendog (for their posts at the Administrators' noticeboard) are now involved, so please find an uninvolved administrator to review this.

If you worry about my not being constructive if I am unblocked, I ask that whoever is handling this request exsert those worries. After having been blocked for "[d]isruptive editing" on my previous account, I returned with this one. I returned to make amends. I returned to set right everything I disordered. I returned to assert my concerns. I returned with the hope of maintaining this stately encyclopedia, and I partially fulfilled this here. I would like to continue perfecting this great community. My last hope when I returned was to get blocked again, this time indefinitely, but instead to participate in the creation of an online encyclopedia destined to become the essence of Internet, the essence of knowledge, and the essence of perfection.

As Carl Rogers once said, "If we value independence, if we are disturbed by the growing conformity of knowledge, of values, of attitudes, which our present system induces, then we may wish to set up conditions of learning which make for uniqueness, for self-direction, and for self-initiated learning". I believe just that and hope to introduce it to the Wikipedia community.

I sincerely apologize for my attacks (as you put them) at administrators. To Newyorkbrad, if you find problem with my username, if I get unblocked, I will be open to changing my username. I am a man true to my word, so don't hesitate to unblock me. Thanks, Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, forgive me if I forgot to include your name in my extensive list of involved administrators. You were involved ab ignitio due to your post here on my talk page.
Secondly, perhaps I have not made myself clear. I repeat that you should unblock me, and if I misbehave, block me forthwith. I reiterate, "How much damage can I inflict when at least six administrators are watching me?" I know you will feel reluctant, but please, give me a third chance. I now understand the rules. I have fully read through each of the five pillars. Again, unblock me and once I misbehave, reblock me immediately. Ab hinc I will strive to become an asset to Wikipedia. Thanks, Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ab ignitio" means "from the beginning." I have not known you from the beginning of your time at Wikipedia; I just noticed that you were doing things that were likely to get you blocked, and left a friendly not letting you know that you were likely to be blocked if you didn't stop. You didn't, and you are, and that's all there was to my 'involvement'. You're welcome to ask for another review, but I think that any new admin will not be able to find anything different in your editing history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel as though you absolutely disregarded my message, save for the "ab ignitio" part. To clarify what I meant by "you were involved ab ignitio", I didn't mean that you were involved "from the beginning of [my] time at Wikipedia." However, I did mean that you were involved from the beginning of this account. You were the second administrator to edit my talk page. Although what you said was "friendly", nevertheless, you may have fostered a prejudicial grudge towards the likes of me.
You ignored my thoughts about my incapacity to deface Wikipedia when so many administrators are eyeballing me. You also did not acknowledge that I had "fully read through each of the five pillars", an integral condition to succeed on Wikipedia. I utterly can't see how detrimental it will be to unblock me and be ready to reblock me if I misbehave. I'm experiencing a grim case of déjà vu. Please respond considering these aspects. Regards, Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just further trolling and further harassment, the reasons for which you were blocked in the first place. I've changed the block to disable your ability to troll further here. Find somewhere else to play. If there is an administrator who sees this who is willing, for heaven knows what reason, to unblock this individual, feel free to do so on whatever terms you wish without consulting me. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My Offer Anent My Unblock

I am back to pursue my case, not in the form of "trolling and harassment", but in a polite, urbane manner. I ask that you bear with me on this.

History

From alpha to omega, here is an aperçu.
My work on Wikipedia commenced rather abruptly when I made my debut using 207.97.213.170. My subsequent edits were along the same line. I was promptly blocked for vandalism. In retrospect, I understand that my edits were definitely not constructive, but I would not construe them as vandalism, as I was just an abecedarian then.

I returned with Hiineedrequestforcomment to "pursue defense of my actions on my previous account". I was quite hostile to Jpgordon and continued to argue my case quite impolitely, insulting other users. After making my only constructive edit, I was blocked for "trolling and harassment". I continued to argue against my block, and my block settings were changed, disabling me from editing at all.

I returned with The Reformed Editor, truly thinking I was reformed. I created my userpage declaring that I was the alternate account of Hiineedrequestforcomment. I made several improvements to Julia Mancuso, Shaun White, Ted Ligety, Purna, Akola city, and 2010 Winter Olympics, but then I started arguing with users about the ranking of the 2010 Winter Olympics medal table. I do admit that my actions were quite inappropriate. Après reading my userpage promulgation, Andrwsc blocked me. I asked him tersely, "Does [my block] mean that all indefinitely-blocked users cannot ever return to Wikipedia to make changes, even if they are helpful?" This prompted him to change the block settings of Hiineedrequestforcomment to allow me to make my offer. Here I am now.

Declarations

• I pledge allegiance to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, that promise has unfortunately been denied to me.
• I promise to let sleeping dogs lie. It was my obsession with pursuing justice of that petty IP that led to my downfall.
• I promise to continue making constructive edits. The following are the inexhaustive diffs for all the constructive edits I have made:

1. Bode Miller
2. Julia Mancuso
3. Shaun White
4. Ted Ligety
5. Purna
6. Akola city
7. 2010 Winter Olympics
8. And many more. . .

• I issue an apology to all those editors who have construed me as a detriment to Wikipedia.

Final Thoughts

• The year of 2009 was an annus mirabilis, but my only regret was not coming to Wikipedia earlier.
• To Andrwsc: you didn't think much of my constructive edits. Yes, they may not have promoted articles to Featured Article of Good Article statuses, but nonetheless, they were improvements to the general quality of Wikipedia.
  Also, I don't understand why you are giving me this chance when you say at the Administrators' noticeboard that you "would personally !vote oppose to an unblock". Does that mean I have no chance of getting unblocked?
• I will assay to refrain from argufying that may launch into a full-scale argumentum.
• I hope to participate in the development of an accurate, just, collegial ambiance here on Wikipedia. For me, in the aftertime, I hope to develop mutual understanding with my fellow editors. My amour propre is quite high now, so please don't ruin it.
• I hope you will help me help Wikipedia by unblocking me forthwith and allowing me to apply my abracadabra to those articles starkly in need of magic. I would not be where I am and the person I am without Wikipedia. Many may consider this to be an overstatement, but I consider it to be what some may call reality.

Thanks, Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone going to reply? Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently no one bothered to notify you, feeling that you might have been monitoring the relevant discussion. The relevant portion is reproduced here for your convenience:

Resolved

 – Accounts left blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So you won't be returning. Best of luck with your future efforts in other venues. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have now returned the block to its former status so we won't be troubled with your further comments. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)