User talk:I'm the parasite

Vandalizing my page
Why did you leave a message about vandalism on my talk? Who are you and what are you talking about? Looks to me like this was harassment and vandalism on my page. Contact Basemetal   here  19:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No I mistook your account, sorry. --I&#39;m the parasite (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cheers. Contact Basemetal   here  22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell me what you found to be vandalism? I in turn will explain myself. --I&#39;m the parasite (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, "Mr" Grump? He is a nobody and his shallow reasons for wanting me blocked were all rebuffed before you made your decision. Well Guru, you are a fucking shit, and so is your friend Andy the Cunt Grump. Now, do everyone a favour and drink a litre of fertilizer and kill yourself. --I&#39;m the parasite (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to unblock (any administrator may) pending explanation of the following disruptive edits:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * I see other productive work from you which is appreciated. But one disruptive edit overshadows the others.  Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, example 1 is, I admit, very badly worded. I needed somehow to eliminate the ambiguity that someone assumed "partner" to be sexual which is so often the case with that word. So I said 'not sexual' but I might be able to prance around that one by changing the rest of the wording - "colleague" for instance, instead of partner (or "fellow musician", lots of choices). The summary was humorous, not meant seriously, and I thought it wouldbe okay because it wasn't a part of the mainspace info. If that kind of thing is wrong, it won't reoccur.

Now example 2 did actually contain a source about a product that was launched in that very name, which in turn is a jocular BUT nonetheless common name people use to refer to the boyband One Direction. I assumed that there was some notability element here, I mean Butcher of Baghdad points to Saddam Hussein despite it being hostile. But I say again, if my observation has been wrong, I retract it and shall not reinstate any bit of it. --I&#39;m the parasite (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that this contributor also created a 'One Erection' redirect to One Direction (now deleted).
 * That is explained above

And that the edit summary of the Bill Wyman edit likewise contained gratuitous (and off-topic) negative commentary on the band.
 * That too is explained above

The contributor also seems to think that replacing content in our Emilia (Bulgarian singer) article with material evidently about another person entirely is appropriate. 
 * That was a very long time ago and was a test when I was getting used to the tools, had I not been reverted, I would have self-reverted.

And that it is appropriate to replace a message that a contributor has been blocked indefinitely with a welcome template. 
 * I believe every user should first be warmly greeted into the community and as for blocks, everyone has the right of appeal. Removing block message may be in breach of rules but not vandalism.

If there are a few legitimate edits amongst this dross, I see no reason to assume that they are anything but a smokescreen for trolling.
 * This is a hostile editor's mere opinion, a good faith edit is a good faith edit, it doesn't cover anything up, but only a future opportunity will prove that I am fit to edit and Andy the Grump has made a poor judgement.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The vandalism to the Emilia (Bulgarian singer) page remained unreverted for 11 days, making the claim that 'I'm the parasite' intended to self-revert rather implausible (and come to that, not much of a defence anyway given that readers saw the garbage all that time). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was testing I couldn't even see the result of what I did, I was very rusty in those days, plus I never quite had everyday access to Wikipedia like I do now. Obviously if you can prove I did, please produce that proof because at the moment, your suspicion of bad faith hasn't carried any weight outside your imagination and your labelling of my work as "garbage" is again your own POV. Obviously you are entitled to it so it is worth me saying I don't go much on your contributions either, but will set an example by stopping short of calling it what I personally think of it. --I&#39;m the parasite (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)