User talk:RedRabbit1983/May 2007

 Welcome to Wikipedia! Hello, RedRabbit1983, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Kyok  o
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks for the welcome message. RedRabbit1983 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
Blanked because they were incorrect (good-faith vandalism and blanking of own talk page) and annoying. RedRabbit1983 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ...blanking of article pages/sections is considered vandalism. Language such as: "arsehole", fuckyou", and "fuckwit"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nardman1&diff=prev&oldid=123015462 is uncivil and is not tolerated. Next time you will be blocked. See WP:CIVIL and Vandalism. Rlevse 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re final warning: One of the reasons is erroneous: see Vandalism. It is silly for you to cite Vandalism when the page itself refutes the very reason.

Removing warnings
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Ian Cairns 12:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Alison: It might be helpful if next time the blocking admin supplies the correct reason. I was repeatably warned about blanking and vandalism, for the wrong reasons. I left an angry message on someone's talk page; I got a final warning; I was not going to be banned; I blanked my userpage; and then an admin banned me for vandalism ("abuse of editing priviliges"). It's quite simple: Icairns thought I deserved to be banned for leaving an angry message, but did not do so until provoked by page blanking, which itself is 'neither here nor there'. In short, I was banned because I called one editor a 'fuckwit' and an 'arsehole', in a single message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRabbit1983 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: your edit summaries speak volumes about your civility issues. A fourth admin will be along shortly to re-review your block - Alison ☺ 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even so, my edit summaries a few days ago and weeks ago are not under review, are they? I made a few sarcastic comments a while back, and to see them you have to open my "User contributions". They don't leap out and offend unsuspecting editors.


 * After this final warning, I blanked my userpage, and—despite this action not properly constituting vandalism (as defined under Vandalism)—I was banned because of it, as can be seen below. I have made this counter-reason known in my "reason to unblock", but no admin has yet risen to the occasion—I wonder why. The admin who blocked me made an honest mistake, probably because he didn't like me. No reason has yet been stated to contradict my argument. It might be nice—really—if someone actually showed me I did something past a final warning that did indeed merit my being blocked, and gave a counter-reason to my argument. Though this is all rather silly.


 * For a bit of fun, take a look at the policy page on blocking. It says something about following policy correctly, and indeed that not doing so might be harmful. If no one unblocks me, I might preserve this part of my talk page for the sake of it.


 * Note: I blanked everything above the final warning, except the welcome message, in accordance with policy: "this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments [on the user's talk page] at the user's discretion" (quoted from Vandalism.) When precious warnings disappear, the admins don't seem to like policy.

RedRabbit1983 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I got your E-mail. I am not your blocking administrator and am therefore uninterested in unblocking you. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff  20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the above
I got a little carried away. Sorry guys. RedRabbit1983 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. It happens. Now go edit :-) - Alison ☺ 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy?
Hey rabbit, thanks for taking the time to reply to my comments on the discussion page for Coffee. Sorry if I seemed discourteous, but I've had to remove a few such references from 4 or 5 articles now. I was involved (very minor level, mind you) in a couple of articles which were killed off, and I didn't agree with the reasoning behind them, so I'm a bit hot headed towards wikipedia in general.

Prior to coffee, I corrected a referencing in the article on camoflage. Someone had tagged the phrase "cryptic camoflage" as needing a citation to prove that it existed. Google gave me links to a Harvard Professor as I recall, who had written a paper on the very same thing. My knee jerk reaction was "Okay, so now we don't trust what Harvard Biology professors have to say about Biology?" It took me only a minute or so to find a few other reputable *.edu sources for the info.

As such, I've seen a side of Wikipedia which seems to point to an editorial staff who is obsessed with correctness, and unwilling to accept new information. Regardless of how simple it is to veryify that said information may be in fact, highly valid, true, and proven.

Nothing Personal against you. It's just that if I see people pointing fingers, and accusing others of blatantly lying or making things up, I feel occasionally compelled to investigate. In every case so far, my investigation has turned up relatively quickly, that disputed technicalities are easily verifiable.

Of course, if the only reference I found to a piece of info happened to come from, say, The Onion, I'd still view it as highly suspect. Generally, I look for info coming from .edu domains, and try ignoring anything else which appears highly frivolous. (Needless to say, citations coming from Fox News are obvious lies.) (HAH!  Just kidding...  Ah  sorry, I get carried away sometimes.)

Anyways, just thought I'd drop you a line and acknowledge your comments in a calm manner. Thanks for the opportunity for discourse. See ya' on the net. :) CameronB 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside... I really like your old user page. It sounds like something I would say. You should restore it. We have, on the internet, the right to free speech, and the freedom to express any opinion we wish. Don't let "the man" as it were, hold you back.CameronB 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)