User talk:HyperSonicBoom/Vandalism Archive

Untitled Headline

 * You do realise, don't you, that this "notice" amounts to "do not revert my actions even though they violate policy and copyright law, and do not tell me they violate policy and copyright law"? Not a very productive approach.  Vandalism specifically excludes the removal of content which violates policy and copyright law.  The images are "fair use", which means that using them other than in carefully defined circumstances violates copyright law, as well as policy (copyright policy, fair use criteria).  End of story, really.  Guy (Help!) 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Wizardman 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * HOW DARE YOU! I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!!! HyperSonicBoom 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * YOU were vandalizing my pages. I did not vandalize anything! HyperSonicBoom 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I guess I will NEVER give a Barnstar to an administrator. NEVER!!! HyperSonicBoom 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, you could see my message to NOT reply there. That was a notice!


 * And now I can't even edit MY user page! HyperSonicBoom 01:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have violated 3RR then, sorry. And now you're violating WP:NPA.-- Wizardman 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry?! Sorry?! Sorry?! You expect me to believe you are sorry after blocking me just for violating a stupid, nonsense editing rule?! I don't get it. How can a simple 3 revert rule get me blocked?! It isn't vandalism, like how you keep vandalizing my userboxes! HyperSonicBoom 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look above at my talk page header. "No nonsense* posts or vandalism*. It will be deleted."
 * * - You are making a big deal about a stupid 3 revert rule for my userbox. And since you are talking about the userboxes you vandalized, this post is considered vandalism. Since these stupid Wikipedia rules got me blocked, I consider them nonsense. This is a nonsense post, because of Wikipedia's nonsense rules. And it says vandalism and nonsense will be deleted. This post will be deleted after my block. HyperSonicBoom 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to stay out of this, but HyperSonicBoom you've just stated the worst thing yet. If its a rule, it exsists for a reason. Wikipedia is not the place to violate a stupid rule. The windows logo that was contained within the userbox is what was a copyvio. You could have simply chosen to change that, or left it alone. You didn't have to have that userbox. Second, if you find it to be nonsense and conclude that Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over your userpage which is hosted on Wikipedia servers, then I would kindly ask you to rethink that, if you can not, you should leave. Regards, Somitho 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) HyperSonicBoom 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not helpful, and it would be appreciated if you refrained from any further incivility. You may be blocked, or have your existing block extended if you continue.
 * As for your user boxes, the images in question violated the fair use criteria, which are part of Wikipedia policy due to the legal status of fair use images. It is not "vandalism" to remove things which violate policy, and intentionally readding such things is a blockable action. You also do not own your user pages, nor any other part of the Wikipedia; see WP:OWN. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? WHAT?! What personal attacks?! Plus, reverting vandalism three times gets you blocked?! It IS a stupid rule. HyperSonicBoom 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks: calling the removal of illegal content "vandalism". Have you read WP:FU and WP:FUC and do you understand Copyright law? How about WP:CIVIL? Please read them before again calling everything and everyone stupid. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling anyone stupid. I was calling the rules stupid. Personal attacks? No, I wasn't. And they were vandalizing my pages. HyperSonicBoom 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They were not vandalizing "your" pages. From WP:VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Removing illegal content does not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, it strengthens it. Your repeated stating of their actions in this way is a personal attack. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * THERE! HAPPY NOW?! I DELETED MY USERBOX SHOP WITH MY IP! BLOCK IT IF YOU WANT, BUT I DID IT SO YOU VANDALS WILL LEAVE ME ALONE! I AM IN A BAD MOOD BECAUSE OF YOU! NOW GET LOST AND VANDALIZE SOMEONE ELSE'S PAGE! HyperSonicBoom 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I guess I'll just be part of Uncyclopedia's team until my block expires and you idiots smarten up. So, see you later. HyperSonicBoom 05:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wizardman, you WILL stop extending my block or me and Jimmy Wales (the creator of the Wikimedia Foundation) are going to get personal about these stupid policies! HyperSonicBoom 06:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the block log your block's over. Now try and play nice, I could certainly block you indefinitely is you start vandalizing again.-- Wizardman 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't vandalizing. HyperSonicBoom 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)