User talk:H2umvee

July 2020
Hello, I'm Ed6767. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Early life of Shivaji—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Ed 6767   talk!  01:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Ed6767 - aka wiki-Police! With power/contributions comes great responsibility. With you being selective, nothing will appear constructive. I merely rolled backed changes to it's previous edits. Provide constructive f/b and explanation of selective implementation of policies. I'm not one, who belongs to the defund the police. I appreciate, your effort on wiki. But, most of you folks largely get carried away. Yeah! I know a thing or two about sandboxing. Please let's not use the big brother cookie cutter response.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Alivardi  (talk)  09:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Commons-emblem-hand-orange.svg User:Alivardi - At it's best this is *cute*! "ONLY! PERSONAL! BLOCK! those worlds carry weight. And, that was a quick edit from a seasoned(?) editor. Unfortunately, I'm not a full-time editor (Is there one? :-)). I suggest we refresh understanding of WP:WHYBLOCK WP:NOPUNISH WP:AC/DS It's not difficult to go back and refresh. I'm a wiki donor, and avid user - At best, you can question my tone, but calling it "personal attacks" on my first ever edits/remarks is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. I see a pattern here. The editor, whose unexplained edits were questioned could have responded. But, NOpe! It has to be round-robbin pack hunt for showcase neutrality. And, archives are editable for a reason. Wiki discourages it's editing. But, if they really wanted to STOP all archive edits, its less than a MINUTE of tech-effort to change a flag in the code. You retorted to quick acid-washing of all my edits. But, chose to completely ignore the unexplained (borderline) condescending editorial responses of those who have admin rights to Chhatrapati Shivaji wiki. I expected better! You can BLOCK me, but that may not be adhering to wiki-guidelines. And, the above is not a PERSONAL attack. [CAPS for emphasis] And, not everyone is for HIRE. H2umvee (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you have no intention of editing in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Your way of dealing with anyone you disagree with is to be contemptuous, patronising, and derisory, and you make frequent use of personal attacks, continuing to do so after warnings. You have also openly declared your intention of not following Wikipedia policy, and your editing confirms that you meant what you said. It is also evident that you are almost certainly evading blocks on other accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks before doing so. JBW (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Commons-emblem-hand-orange.svg JBW] - You crack me up! IMAGINATION gone WILD! That comment - "It is also evident that you are almost certainly evading blocks on other accounts". Get off your high horse. Blinders are cheap! H2umvee (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a bit of advice on what's likely to succeed in getting an account blocked and what isn't. Administrators are on the whole unlikely to unblock someone who when blocked does yet again exactly what they were blocked for. You may or may not choose to take that advice, but I offer it to you in the hope it may help. JBW (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * JBW - My bad. I agree wrong choice of words, from my end. Emotions run high, and we have to be responsible for it, and own it. With that said - our actions precede inspiration - for us and for others too. You haven't responded about your claim of me evading blocks. You probably didn't use all tools at your disposal before making that statement. I cannot even advice you on how to do things because that would be looked down upon as patronizing. I don't think I'm going to trade my self-respect at wiki's door. But, as a concerned citizen I request you to look at my response below to NinjaRobotPirate to weed out MeatPuppetry. My only suggestion; Your call. The way, and with the speed at which the editors of Chhatrapati Shivaji and related pages of his history respond. - leave nothing to imagination of them being editors-in-residence. Which, probably is against wiki-policy. One needs some historical knowledge of the Indian subcontinent to understand that. Or, just enough time. I'm not sure if you have that. But, as a good citizen I appeal to the good citizen in you to investigate or delegate/guide someone whom you know and can. I'm from the tech, and little bit that I know, I can tell if wiki has tools they can easily grab these mischief mongers. I'm making assumptions about these editors (which are fair!) for you/wiki-admins to investigate. "Peace" - from sunny california. Even now, if any part of my response, gives a whiff of sarcasm blame it on my lack of polished grammar skills. Nothing more to it!  Ty! H2umvee (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! NinjaRobotPirate for probably running checkuser. I appreciate your detailed suggestions. Please read no sarcasm.

  I know we all have limited time and it's a precious commodity. But, administration would be far beneficial to the community as a whole, if those powers are used for larger good, rather than to make a quick flip of block/unblock switch. If you care, which I suppose you probably do - please investigate the MeatPuppetry of those guarding the page of Chhatrapati Shivaji. Isn't pointing out that adhering to "*#will make useful contributions instead."?
 * understand what you have been blocked for,
 * will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
 * will make useful contributions instead.

If we are willing to do anything half-hearted (strictly limited to meaning: w/o putting enough time), it's nothing more than patronizing. H2umvee (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're talking about the people who reverted you on Early life of Shivaji. Wikipedia is governed by consensus.  Guidelines are often a record of consensus, including the manual of style.  When you go against the manual of style, it may seem like a number of sock puppets or meat puppets are coming out of nowhere to revert you.  However, this is simply how Wikipedia works.  Editors who have no agenda beyond enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines are not meat puppets.  Feel free to make another unblock request.  A different admin will review it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're talking about the people who reverted you on Early life of Shivaji. Wikipedia is governed by consensus.  Guidelines are often a record of consensus, including the manual of style.  When you go against the manual of style, it may seem like a number of sock puppets or meat puppets are coming out of nowhere to revert you.  However, this is simply how Wikipedia works.  Editors who have no agenda beyond enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines are not meat puppets.  Feel free to make another unblock request.  A different admin will review it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. An editor is blocked from editing, with a substantial part of the reason given for the block being that they have been "contemptuous, patronising, and derisory" to other editors. That editor indicates a wish to be unblocked. They proceed to post long screeds of contemptuous, patronising, and derisory comments about other editors. Hmm. That's a good way of persuading an administrator that they understand the reason for the block and won't do the same again. Hmm. JBW (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)