User talk:Thunderbird2/Harassment by Fnagaton and Greg L


 * It is resolved, as shown in the talk page archive. Your point of view is shown to be weak and you did not support it with any valid argument. "Resolved" does not mean "what Thunderbird2 wants". The problem was discussed openly and civily, you failed to answer questions and you then continued to use ad hominem against other editors, that is why you failed. Fnagaton 05:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thunderbird2, you know the case is closed and archived and since your edits to the main page were correctly reverted you then continue to edit the talk page knowing full well it is archived. This is disruptive editing and you can be blocked for it, do not continue to edit this case page or the talk page. I have reverted your edits and so you are in no doubt there is now a talk archive template there as well. Fnagaton 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thunderbird2 stop misrepresenting the situation. I did not archive the RfC, that was done by this edit and you know the RfC has been closed and archived because the same link is given above by Quilbert. Obviously the RfC was closed and archived a long time before your latest attempt to edit it. You then edited the page to remove the talk archive template while giving a completely incorrect edit summary and despite earlier warnings given directly to you not to edit closed RfCs you continued to do so. Fnagaton 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning about editing against consensus
Thunderbird2: These disruptive edits on computer-related articles,, , , , , , and constitute violations of Tendentious editing and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Refusal to 'get the point' says the following that you should read:

Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where chaos would reign supreme if 1) editors didn’t follow the rules, and 2) there were no remedies for editors who refuse to follow the rules. Note also, the following from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing:

Consider yourself warned. If you continue to be disruptive, disciplinary action may follow. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Greg L (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you adhere to the requirements of MOSNUM and treat other editors as you would have them treat you, then there is no problem. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I always treat other editors with respect, and to suggest otherwise is a bit rich coming from you. I do not wish to discuss your accusation further on my page. If you have anything further to say, please do so here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Thunderbird2 your changes are dispruptive. Please stop posting your version of events all over the place because your interpretation is not consistent with the evidence presented.Fnagaton 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by blocking admin
I invite reviewers of the block to check these five edits, all of which modify the article to defend Thunderbird2's position in the binary vs. decimal controversy. The third of these is the one he is questioning above. Though it continues to change the article to support his position in the dispute, it is arguable that it may not be a revert. Even if you discount that one, there are still four reverts in 24 hours, according to my calculation:

EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 15:25, 11 August 2008
 * 2) 07:42, on 11 August
 * 3) 22:22, on 10 August
 * 4) 19:12 on 10 August (Might or might not be a revert. Asking if it's binary or decimal)
 * 5) 17:01 on 10 August


 * I've replied to your comment at my talk page. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thread is here: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248. – xeno  ( talk ) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fnagaton 05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Do not edit cases after the case is closed.
Your recent edits to Requests for comment/Greg L were made after the case has been closed. Do not edit case pages after the case has been closed. I have corrected the page by removing your edits and restoring it to the last correct version at the point when the case was closed. Do not make any futher changes to the page it has been archived to reflect the correct version at the time the case was closed. Fnagaton 08:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are the subject of a RfC/U
As per normal procedures you may choose to comment if you wish. Fnagaton 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A warning to Thunderbird2 about repeated misrepresentation and personal attacks

 * Thunderbird2 this is another warning that you stop repeating misrepresentation and making personal attacks against me because when you do so it is unwarranted harassment. Fnagaton 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A warning to Thunderbird2 about repeated misrepresentation and personal attacks

 * Thunderbird2 this is another warning that you stop repeating misrepresentation and making personal attacks against me because when you do so it is unwarranted harassment. Fnagaton 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Headbomb and Fnagaton that this tendentious editing has to stop. WorkingBeaver (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)