User talk:Flatoncsi

Thomas McNutt
Please don't revert edits without giving a reason. Can you please discuss it here? Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * the redirect was for non-notability, but the McNutt campaign was the most-watched one in 2016. The original poster, who had his own separate problems, didn't make that clear. I've been trying to salvage the page during the day, and you came in and wiped the page with the redirect. There's notability, I just need an hour or two to include the refs and show it. Flatoncsi (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your reason, and for working on it. I hope you find enough to establish notability, though it's not there yet. You may want to use the                    { {underconstruction} } tag to make it clear as this is sitting waiting for review by the New Page Patrol, which is how I came across it, and others are likely to nominate it for deletion. The other option, if you need longer, is to move it to Draft:Thomas McNutt, work on it there where it's safe from deletion, then move it back when it's ready. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are good ideas. If I can kick some of these harassing editors off my back I think I can show this was notable. We'll see if the haters win. Flatoncsi (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be too put off by all this. I understand the intense frustration of experienced editors when dealing with articles on what look like non-notable topics, but I would also never want an editor to be put off. I've created thousands of articles and work on the backlog of articles tagged for notability and on New Page Patrol, but have still found myself on the losing side of an AfD where I've spent a lot of effort and think the opposing arguments are crazy. It's always hard, but sometimes that's the consensus. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Boleyn, You're being very kind and thoughtful, but I suggest that if you look into some of these editors, they're very pointedly malicious, and not like yourself. Flatoncsi (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I read your comment. I suggest you take a deep breath and relax. I believe what CT was indicating was your lack of understanding Wikipedia criteria for article inclusion. Given your comments, you should read, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN before responding to anyone concerning the notability of article subjects. red dogsix (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He was being a dick. I appreciate your message, I appreciate the suggestion. But having to fight the demeaning tone and arrogance of long-time editors isn't fun, it's bullying in any context. Flatoncsi (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Diverse Interests
While I understand that you had a content disagreement with Chris troutman, you may want to read WP:HOUND. If you continue to make nonsensical reverts of his edits on random pages, this account will be blocked. Kuru  (talk)  11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually you have that reversed, he's been hounding me for weeks. He makes constant undo reversions of good articles for no reason. In this most recent instance, he came in and reverted someone's cn tags without giving an explanation. I reverted his edits, and I gave an explanation. So it was not "nonsensical" and it wasn't harassing. I don't make nonsensical edits, and all of mine are given reasons consistent with policy. Flatoncsi (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * His edit added the tags, [ yours removed them. Your edit summary and actions make no sense, and certainly has no basis in policy. I can see no prior edits or interest from you in the articles Damnatio memoriae, Uranyl chloride, Nihang, Origin of water on Earth or Prosecutor where you've targeted this editor. If you have a dispute, take it up with them on their talk page. Following them around to jump into unrelated disputes is against policy and simple harassment. I would suggest breaking off at this point. Kuru   (talk)  14:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have long-standing interest in all of those topics. Just because I have varied interests doesn't mean I can't edit. If I was focused on one subject, Chris Troutman would say I wasn't being objective anyway. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Asking for Citations
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Jonathan A Jones. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism to point out that you needed a citation for a claim. Flatoncsi (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please leave other editors' user pages alone. They are not articles requiring references. BencherliteTalk 17:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a very specific claim, and it requires a citation. I'm not going to let unsourced citations stand. You can learn to live with that. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Requesting a citation is unusual and unwise, but not necessarily vandalism. However this edit  in which you changed the page to include incorrect information is unambiguous vandalism. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I could only find a citation to 12, not 32, so it wasn't vandalism. You admit it was unsourced, thanks for being honest at least to that extent. Glad you could find a sock account to ban me for asking for a citation though. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that you have only just come off your block for breaching WP:CIVILITY immediately embarking on personal attacks does not seem the wisest behaviour. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, if half the things on your talk page were true, you wouldn't be so thin-skinned. Your bullying and demeaning tone to other editors is what set me off on this tangent, and I'd do it again. Come at me, brah. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Civility
This is a warning that gross incivility like this message is ground for immediate block. Do not do it again, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, it doesn't surprise me that yet another sock account decides to get high and mighty when I make one comment pointing out the absurdity and arrogance of one specific editor. Take your civility and shove it up your ass if you think it's just going to be a one-way street where shitheads like Jonathan Jones get to talk down to everyone else and someone like you comes around to selectively complain about civility. Flatoncsi (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Alex ShihTalk 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am perusing the BLP violations in your recent edits, violations which alone might be enough reason to block you indefinitely. It is entirely possible that I find more reason to extend this block. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not "blindly" citing BLP policy; your recent edits contain defamatory material "sourced" to YouTube clips and hack websites. Other defamatory material is sourced to a decent enough publication but reports someone's personal opinion in Wikipedia's voice. It's pretty obvious you're all about "citizen journalists", and that's great, but not for us. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow me to educate you about how "rules" work: there is a posted rule. Then there is an act which one claims is in violation. They then apply the rule to the violation to make an "argument". You continue to identify which act was in violation. Defamation, a word you clearly do not understand, is importantly, a false statement. You might wonder, "well what is false?" And there, again, Wikipedia can help you. False is something that is untrue, a lie. You say that my edits were defamatory, yet you can't point to a single thing that I cited which was not true. You can't, because everything I wrote was cited and referenced. I even went so far as to include the original source material, which in some cases were government documents. Your original claim for the block was to blindly cite to BLP without any application of the rule to my edits, you gave no application, no reason. Now, you say that it's because my edits were defamatory, again without citation or reference. You have the burden to prove your accusation, and you haven't. This is just an arbitrary block that is against the rules, and you can't cite to anything that I wrote which violated BLP or any other policy. Flatoncsi (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)