User talk:AOluwatoyin

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --A Y Arktos\talk 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Warning
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ayn Rand. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- LGagnon 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another warning
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Ayn Rand, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- LGagnon 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please
Please stop the personal attacks. If you do not stop, you will be blocked. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with the warnings that the user put on your talk page. And there are no grounds for mediation or arbitration. You need to talk to the user before you do any of that. You aren't even at 20 edits. Just calm down, take a breath and try to talk to LGagnon calmly. That's all we ask. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Final personal attack warning
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. -- LGagnon 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't let LGagnon threaten you. Actually, it looks like you haven't. He leaves similar messages on my talk page. LaszloWalrus 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility

 * On the basis of this edit which I deem inappropriate and in breach of Civility I have blocked you temporarily.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Your personal attacks and incivility  has continued since after you were blocked for 24 hours. This is your final warning once again. Please immediately refrain from being incivil towards other users. If you feel that the other user is being incivil to you in some way, simply ignore him and remember to focus on content, not on the contributor. We are here to build an encyclopedia after all. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again
Since you were blocked above for incivility and you've started immediately with this, I've blocked for a further 24 hours. Cowman109's advice was reasonable and is what is expected of wikipedians. If you find yourself at the receiving end of incivility responding in kind is not appropriate. If you find yourself in dispute find constructive ways of dealing with it, you can also see dispute resolution for help. --pgk( talk ) 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ayn Rand. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

In particular this edit is an example of a breach of this policy with comments such as Foundational logic lessons in response to LGagnon ... the sort of elemental and elementary inconsistency you so wantonly display would get a student of mine a very special grade of: "F - -" That is, a grade I save for students whose work I consider a disgrace even to the "simple" F students.

I note that there is an Anthony Oluwatoyin who writes commentary on various internet sites including proudtobecanadian.ca. Are you the same person? If you are not, because of potential misunderstanding that you might be that journalist, I would deem your user name not appropriate as per Username.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Googling ....
Hi - given you signed your name at least once, yes I did check the surname and there you were. I am sure you will appreciate that it would not be appropriate if somebody purported to be somebody else. On the other hand on the internet anybody can claim to be anybody, but I am happy to assume you are who you say you are.

As apparently you have entered into a debate that has been going for a while, there is always the thought with those who have recently joined the debate with a similar view to one already expressed that the new editor might be a sock puppet for another editor. See for example, the discussion (entirely unrelated to Rand) about an editor to the Lance Armstrong article; a new user was mistaken by several editors to be the banned user reappearing. We are a sceptical lot sometimes, notwithstanding that we are supposed to assume good faith.

You ask I still don't know why no-one seems to answer my appeals/responses with regard to warnings/blocks. - complaints which I have been answering are at WP:PAIN - a page intended to get admin's attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. Feel free to use that noticeboard. I try to be as neutral as possible when dealing with appeals. I (nor any other admin) can not possibly deal with all abuses of guidelines or policies; at best we can evaluate issues brought to our attention and attempt to resolve. There are more formal escalation procedures if you feel you have been wrongly dealt with. If you feel you have been wrongly warned, even if you are blocked you can still write to your own talk page. You can of course enter into discussion with the warning / blocking admin. The discussion point "S/he did it too" is probably not going to outweigh any breach of guidelines or policy.

If you wish to escalate a content dispute, then you may wish to consider the dispute resolution process - eg seek to move the discussion(s) within the structure of a Requests for comment and perhaps seek views of other editors who are interested in similar scope. For this apparent point of contention, this could include seeking comments from participants at WikiProject Philosophy. --A Y Arktos\talk 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper etiquette
Please stop typing in all capitals and using multiple punctuation. It is considered bad etiquette to do so, and seen as rude by many people. See Etiquette for more details. -- LGagnon 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility issues
Have you tried to have LGagnon blocked? You may have been incivil, but frankly, it WAS a response to his incivility. LaszloWalrus 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop
If you continue with edits such as this one, I will have no choice but to give you an extended block. Almost that entire post is attacking another user. Address the *issues* LGagnon is addressing, not the character or "competency" of LGagnon himself. Generally, Wikipedians are to assume good faith, i.e. assume that other users are competent and are acting in good faith. You are not assuming good faith. If you continue this path, you will be blocked. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And btw, LGagnon is not an admin. For future reference, here is the list of admins. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Why do you keep adding Timothy McVeigh to that list? That list is for PHILOSOPHERS only. Either way, Timothy McVeigh was never influenced by Ayn Rand in any way.

Adam T.

Constant Personal attacks.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Selmo 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack accusion
I truly think you've been abusing LGargon for no apparent reason. Nothing you say will change my mind. -- Selmo 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Selmo's view, I see nothing in AOluwatoyin's recent comment that attacks the editor instead of the content or the discussion about the content, and have stated so on Selmo's talk page--Arktos talk 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 72 hours
You have been blocked due to continual incivility such as the post here. Insulting other users pretty much defines incivility. Just tone it down a notch or two. --Woohookitty(meow) 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to block LGagnon and Woohookitty(meow).
I was blocked for incivility. I had previously and univocally argued that I responded to the position not the person. I believe I am being subjected to a conspiracy of admin/editor friends/buddies. I believe I am being silenced in terms of a vigorous viewpoint. I am not even able to contact any admin. re: block. I can only post a message on my own talk page. Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AOluwatoyin 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know LGagnon. You are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't. Please assume good faith. I know next to nothing about Ayn Rand or LGagnon or anyone else involved in the articles you've been involved in. I'm just going by your actions and how they relate to our policies. And btw, 90% of admins are reachable by email. Here is the list of admins. You would just go to one of their userpages and then click on the "Email this user" link to email them. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week
This is your last chance. If you would contribute to the encyclopedia more instead of constantly bickering with others, you would probably be given a longer leash. Once you return, I would suggest just editing articles for awhile instead of engaging in constant bickering. The bickering makes you seem like a troll and that's why you keep getting blocked. --Woohookitty(meow) 20:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

=
==========================================================--207.161.6.149 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC) I empathise with you AOluwatoyin. I have had numerous difficulties with LGagnon. Everytime I have offered any constructive criticism of her writing s/he runs crying to an administrator for a block. And boy, does s/he ever make some nasty comments but seems to suffer no consequences. That's because s/he is good friends with Woohookitty and a couple of other administrators. I'm telling you this right now: LGagnon is diametrically opposed to freedom of speech. S/he represents a dangerous fascist undercurrent in American society. That's why s/he calls administrators vandal coddlers. And I absolutely agree with you that s/he deserves an "F" for most of the work s/he has contributed to Wikipedia. I hope you are unblocked soon. Bonne Chance! --207.161.6.149 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but I've reported you for malicious use of a sock puppet account and for the personal attack you made earlier. -- LGagnon 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please
No legal threats. It's one of the few rules we are absolute about. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

=
===================================================================================

Hi AOluwatoyin. I'm so sorry to hear you were banned again for one week. I was the one who wrote in support of you. I posted some comments on LGagnon's talk page which he called "attack garbage". If you do not agree with everything s/he says it is a personal attack and s/he will practically scream rape to have you banned. Absolutely one of the most dishonourable characters I have ever encountered. Please, when you are unblocked, do not threaten legal action because the administrators have indicated they will permanently block you if that was to occur. Those of us who are vigourous in our defence of free speech must confront those who would, if they had their way, plunge the world into intellectual darkness. Oh, and by the way I find that your responses to LGagnon and the administrators throughout the course of this dispute have been nothing less than intellectually inspiring. I fail to see any personal attacks; simply invitations to debate a point in a reasoned manner. Anyways, appended below is the comments I posted on LGagnon's talk page with respect to this dispute:

=
=================================================================================== This is "attack garbage"? You can't just delete everything you don't like. Stop crying "personal attack, personal attack, ban him, block him, vandal" and ARGUE YOUR POINT!

RE-INSERTION (absolutely fair comment, not a personal attack in any way):

I am not a sock puppet. I resent the accusation. I've reviewed the dispute in its entirety between you and AOluwatoyin and I have decided in favour of AOluwaytoyin. You must address criticism with argument. If you are confident in your position then argue it. Do not try to stifle or prevent the expression of views by others. --207.161.6.149 01:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please discontinue threatening people with bans and blocks continually. As far as I'm aware you are not an administrator. Appended here is a comment from another user, and this is one of many containing the same types of comments:

''Don't let LGagnon threaten you. Actually, it looks like you haven't. He leaves similar messages on my talk page. LaszloWalrus 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)''

It is important that we act with civility in this forum. Unjustified threats are inappropriate and are counterproductive. --142.161.176.66 06:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LGagnon"

=
===================================================================================

You have been blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely for using sockpuppets to harrass LGagnon, myself and others. Please stop using sockpuppets. It doesn't do you or anyone else any good. Thank you. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna lie, the fact that theres some type of wikipedia mafia going around blocking free speech is disgusting. I agree with the anonymous user, who stated earlier that, "I find that your responses to LGagnon and the administrators throughout the course of this dispute have been nothing less than intellectually inspiring". I'm sorry that you're going through this kind of harassment, I just sort of stumbled on it on the Ayn Rand page...its horrible that this kind of stuff can happen and only the innocent suffer the consequences. Cheeda777 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)