User talk:Starkarrow

July 2018
I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Linguist un Eins uno (Linguist111) 01:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These newcomers I have warned are vandals, pure and simple. I will be watching them the same way I watch potential criminals every day, ready to get them locked up behind bars to keep society safe. Please don’t thank me - I consider it my duty. Starkarrow (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Before you revert an edit, you should check it more carefully first – it may be just a test edit by a user unaware that the sandbox exists, for instance. Also, use of the final warning and only warning templates should only be used in cases of severe vandalism or in cases in which the user has recently been warned before. See WP:WARN for more details. Linguist un Eins uno (Linguist111) 01:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the project can not afford to adopt a policy of watchful waiting. Why are you so intent on defending these vandals? They should be punished severely to serve as a warning to others. I don’t think that your attitude is doing any favors for Wikipedia. I came here to serve the project and become an administrator so I can ban unconstructive people. Wikipedia needs more editors like me. Starkarrow (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's objective is not to punish editors for disruption. The template system works a certain way, as documented at WP:WARN. Linguist un Eins uno (Linguist111) 02:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Elaboration of revertation
Can you please elaborate the reason on reverting my changes on the ARMv8 Comparison table? Not being logged in is not the reason to mark adding information to a table vandalism. EDIT: "Admitted sock puppeteering" doesn't exist, it's a paradox. However, I am glad that Wikipedia's administrators are fairly fast in removing rogue/powertripping moderators. K0uya (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are an admitted sock puppeteer and I will see to it that you are banned. Starkarrow (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags
I have removed the sockpuppet tags you added as no abusive sockpuppetry took place (see WP:LOGOUT). Linguist un Eins uno (Linguist111) 02:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you are following me and countering my efforts to keep Wikipedia free of vandals and sock puppets. I would also point out that you are not an admin, so you are hardly one to talk about dealing with these issues. I don’t know if you realise you are being disruptive or not, but I fear the solution may be the same in any case. Starkarrow (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Linguist un Eins uno (Linguist111) 03:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, hi, I see that. Very interesting. How many more people do you need to get blocked in order to become an admin? Also, Tarage, I find your comments very insightful and entertaining - I see that you spend a lot of time commenting at ANI. Do you wield power and control over subordinates in your career? Starkarrow (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No but I get a tremendous amount of pleasure from watching people like you get put in their place, so by all means continue. It's very therapeutic. --Tarage (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ansh 666 07:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)