User talk:Nuka5

'Empires' AFD
Thanks for the message on my talk page. You have persuaded me to change my vote to a "strong delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Nuka5, I have written a further reply on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning re Articles for deletion/Empires
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nuka5, I have just edited Articles for deletion/Empires to revert a series of edits you made today (see diff), which substantially altered some of you earlier contibutions to the discussion.


 * On my talk page, I had already specifically drawn your atention to the Behavior that is unacceptable section of Talk page guidelines.


 * It specifically says there "Don't change your text", because "this will put others' comments in a different context", and warns that "Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia."


 * That's why I have issued the formal warning above. I probably shoukd have issued a warning before now, but I had hoped that by spending time to discuss things with you, we could things getting formal.


 * If you want to particpate further in the discussion, make sure that you have first read and understand the wiikpedia policies at Talk page guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * FOR GOD SAKE, I MADE THAT SECTION A FREELY EDITABLE PART. I MENTIONED ABOVE AND BELOW THE SECTION THAT ANYONE COULD EDIT IT. IT WAS NOT, REPEAT NOT A COMMENT OF MINE. I DID NOT CHANGE MY TEXT, I UPDATED IT. WHAT THE HELL WAS WRONG WITH THAT? ANYONE WAS FREE TO UPDATE THAT SECTION, I ONLY STARTED IT. then you went and removed my privalage to edit this page, so i can't edit it now. how is this fair? I WHOLELY UNDERSTAND WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE STOP INSULTING ME.


 * the section i created, as i mentioned, was for the arguements to be laid out correctly, so everyone could be clear about the issues raised. I also included DO NOT REMOVE DATA FROM HERE, only add. you failed this also. furthermore, you deletes ALL of my changes, not just changes that made following posts possibly not make sense. why was this? was this because you didn't like the further evidence i had added to the cleaned up debate section?


 * but how the HELL is "the following posts not making sense" more important that the ACTUAL DEBATES that are key to the arguement. you are clearly more interested in getting this artical deleted than looking at the actual arguement. if you had wanted, if you didn't want to be entirely destructionist, you would have added a note mentioning the change and that would have been acceptable. I would have happily included a note of the change if asked. but you are not interested. you just delete what you see as wrong.


 * have you not seen your fellow admins entirely remove posts that they disagree with, and edit their own posts to match? Case in point: L0b0t, who clearly did not read the Empires article in question and posted "this is not a place for Halo Mods". someone pointed out that the mod was Half-Life. He removed their post and changed his.


 * up to now i have been civil, i have put up with being put down, insulted, i have tried to RECTIFY the debate by making things clearer and more organised.. please re-instate the changes i made, and allow me to edit the page again. This message in case been coppied to relevant authorities incase a third party is needed in this debate. &mdash;the preceding comment is by Nuka5 - 18:56, 30 October 2006: Please sign your posts!


 * Nuka5, I protected the page only while reverting the vandalism, and then then unprotected it. I have just done so again while reverting your latest vanadalism (see [ diff], and added the next step of formal warning below.


 * The talk page guidelines do not allow the creation of "freely editable" sections of talk pages. Please read them. You may add extra comments, but do 'not edit the text already written.


 * If you feel that the warnings you have received are unfair and you want to alert other admins, please feel free to do so. And if you have evidence of other editors removing comments, please post a link to the diff and I will take appropriate action.


 * Please note that I have not removed any new comments you have made to the AFD: like anyone else, you are free to add your comments. But I reverted the whole of those edits because they included changes to an existing comment: either the whole edit stays or none of it, and I will not unpick which parts of an edit to keep.  If you want to add any of the points in those edits, please add them below other comments.


 * Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i see. Yes, i know in the rules that it says do not edit my comments. fortunately, that is not a comment. As clearly explained. it also says "Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out". This is clearly all i sort to do. Furthermore, my comments were NOT vandalism, as vandalism is defined as: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." In addition to this, wiki states: "Talk page vandalism   Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." Which i did not commit. This is also obviously not what i sort to do, especially emphasised by the notes i included at the bottom showing where changes had been made that could create ANY sort of problem, such as wrong context.

Would it be more clear if the "tidy" secton was kept at the bottom of the page? that way, it will always be the last thing, not effecting anything beneath it.

HOWEVER, I will do as you said. although i believe you are solely using your powers to corrupt and warp this arguement, you also have the power to remove my ability to edit. so i must comply. I can instead re-post the section each time an edit needs to be made. yes, it will be a little repetative, but it will be following the debate and in no way be an 'illigal' move. It is also certainly not vandalism. I am aware that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice guides us not to use repetativeness, but it is a guide, and i feel that a tidy section is benefiting the arguement by showing both sides of the arguement in a clear way that can be viewed by newcommers.

More vandalism
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

See reply above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen deleted my comment 3 times, without warning, or even giving justification why! you repeatedly say: "don't delete other people's comments." well he did! I am allowed to revert that!

furthermore: you're the one that keeps bringing up how you were "canvassed" at the start. is it not beneficial to the debate that people should see the details of what that was? Are you on his side? are you working together? It seemed brilliantly fast that less than 5 minutes after i had to revert my changes back that you picked up on that and have gotten another excuse to give me a warning. if i didn't know better then I would say you are working together.

I recomend you suspend his privilages imidiately. If you arn't him at all.

and oh look, the empires artical is gone now. seems like you and kingslayer finally managed to push your debate through without looking at any of the facts. I really hope you're happy. i hope you're smug. you 'deserve' this 'victory'. it doesn't even matter that you had no ground to base your beliefs on other than that in your opinion, it wasn't worthy. did you step back for one second and actually consider that it actually WAS an important and notable game? i personally think that you didn't care a bit about the content and just saw this as another fun battle to mess around with. it's sickening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18:15, 1 November 2006 (talk • contribs).


 * The reasons I removed your comments were listed in my edit summaries. I did not remove your text the final time as you can see from the page history, I was going to to, and then leave a link to the talk page. But it got closed before I could do so. I recommend you suspend my privileges immediately. - Hahnch e  n 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahnchen, there was already a link to the talk page: you acted quite properly to revert the spamming, and there was no need to post a link. See comments below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ban
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.

The warning above was followed by a third revert and a clear statemnent of intent to continue reverting the change: "THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I HAVE HAD TO RE-INSTATE THIS COMMENT. DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS. i can KEEP doing this all day, Hahnchen, and you're going to get yourself banned"

The third revert followed shortly after the warning, so it might not have justified a ban ... but even setting aside your repeated efforts to encourage other users to breach talk page guidelines, and all the other issues for which you were warned, the final revert was made to a closed CFD, despite the clear instruction not to edit a closed CFD.

The comment you repatedly reposted from another talk page was clearly linked to from the AFD, by me when I first raised it: "I am returning to revise my vote from "Delete" to "strong delete" after being canvassed by Nuka5 (on my talk page: see 'Empires' Wiki, Which you have opted for deletion)." (posted 14:52, 26 October 2006) There was no need to post it in full, when a link was available, and no need even to repost the link when it was clearly provided in context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly: i did not revert the third time after having read the warning. once the warning was read, i stopped.

Secondly: is disagreeing with what the comment said grounds for deletion? I believe that the way you phrased your comments saying "the way admins have been canvassed" made it seem like i had been rude, forward and vicious. I wanted to clarify that the only canvassing in a friendly way. is that grounds for a ban? you can't delete another comment because

can i ask how i was encoraging other users to break talk page guidelines? That page was getting to be an embarrasement, and all i sought to do was to make it Clear. that is why I posted that "cleared up section". I think you must agree it was needed. many many people said that the page was disorganised and un-readable. If you are refering to the section where I refered the "not non negotiable" page, this was when I believed it was saying that pages should be rated according to notablility, and then was rejected. I could not at the time understand why wiki would create an article saying pages should not be assesed according to notablility, as without other mention it would be self evident.

The final revert? that was because TWO of my comments were destroyed and then the thread instantly locked. How is this fair? how does this show all sides of the arguement?

Can i finally please ask why you are doing nothing about hahnchen? he has clearly and obviously acted outside of wiki policy! he should be banned imidiately for intentional harrasement, intentional breaking of wiki laws, no constructive posting and un explained removal of legitimate comments.

what I posted was a comment, not SPAM. i can't believe you would see it as such! this is an embarrasement to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by nuka5 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 November 2006.


 * Nuka, all the points you raise have already been answered above., Sorry, but I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

(Note: you yourself decscribed your edits as vandalism, hence the use of this term) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. funny that! You can post things on MY userspace, and even after i DELETE THEM, TELLING YOU NOT TO REPOST THEM, you revert and add it to it again. I personally call that vandalism. don't you? Here, you say it IS vandalism. then why did you add it to my userpage, brownhairedgirl? why did you revert after i removed it? you:

-don't class it as vandalism:
 * therefore it can stay on your userpage as a comment at the top, and mine will stay on mine

-do class it as vandalism:
 * therefore you have been vandalising other people's pages

-have double standards, where you can do something to someone else, and it's ok, but when it happens to you it's not.
 * therefore you are not fit to be an admin

PICK ONE.