User talk:UkFaith/Archive

Disconfirm
I didn't fully understand your sentence, but I'm sure I didn't do anything along the lines of what you describe. I haven't been doing much editing lately.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify- here is Nat's edit, where he attempted to reply to your question. Right here it looks like you may have accidentally deleted your own post, and then restored it in the next edit.  --Clay Collier (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Mitsube (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall be taking this further since it is obvious to me that Mitsube & William M. Connolley are actiing together to bully other users out of their Wikipedia right to contribute fairly.
 * Mitsube deleted an entire section without discussing any objections he had within the section with any other contributor. After I reverted this unfair deletion/vandalism I asked Mitsube to discuss his objections in the talk page. He ignored this request and went ahead and rewrote the entire section, changing its meaning. He added several minor edits directly afterwards to prevent any other user from reverting his vandalism without breaking this 3RR rule.


 * I accept I am new to Wikipedia but even I can see that the intended use of the 3RR rule was not to prevent people from reverting vandalism.


 * Also you will note from the time stamp that it has already gone beyond 24 hours and yet I am still banned for at least another 5 hours estimated.


 * This whole episode is extremely fishy and I will be filing what ever complaint I can against those involved. UkFaith (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you object to the clear and well-sourced material I have added on the talk page. That is how wikipedia works. Please refrain from edit-warring, explain your deletions, and answer my questions on the talk page. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again
So you come off your block and immeadiately re-start edit warring and flinging around accusations of vandalism. It won't do. I've blocked you for 24h. Please read the "conditions for unblock" carefully William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not broken any rules to justify this ban. I am within my rights to continue editing where I left off.
 * It takes two to have an edit war. In the past 48 hours Mitsube has described all my edits as vandalism as has undone every single one of them without fail. Even an idiot can see that you are working for or with him.
 * It is completely clear that you intend to support Mitsube's vandalism in every way and I will report you via the official channels.
 * You underestimate me and where I work. UkFaith (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am completely within my rights to edit the Buddhism page, and you have refused to accept or respond to the fact that Mitsube DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY and that he also went on to REWRITE AN ENTIRE SECTION WITHOUT CITATION or references and YOU have banned me from challenging his edits which are NOT WITHIN THE GUIDES OF WIKIPEDIA.


 * YOU CAN NOT BAN PEOPLE WITH OUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE.
 * I will make a request for arbitration against you for your biased misuse of administrator tools and priviledges.


 * Everything is recorded and auditable. UkFaith (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "WITHOUT CITATION or references"? You do not help your case by so totally misrepresenting the situation. Mitsube (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are so full of it Mitsube....you deleted the entire section without cause and when it was reverted you then reworded most of the section in your own way. Before you touched this section it was fine and was referenced to an article co authored by one of the worlds leading Buddhism historians. You had no grounds what so ever for the changes you made and were unwilling to listen to my requests to discuss the matter.
 * You deleted everything I edited and called everyone of my edits vandalism which you know was complete rubbish and was intended to discredit me and my edits. Your actions were unfair and personal from the very beginning.
 * You then got your pal to block my edits in a misuse of admin priviledges.
 * When I am able I will take this higher and report both of you for what has happend here.UkFaith (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As anyone can see, after you restored the section (which I had given my reasons for removing on the talk page), I only added content, all of which was sourced. I later made other edits which I explained clearly on the talk page. You, however, have the following to respond to. You can do this here while you are blocked. You must respond.


 * The EB source does not distinguish between Vedic religion and Brahmanism. You are, as far as  I know, the creator of that distinction.
 * The person responsible for the current version of the EB source is someone named Amy Tikkanen, according to that article's edit history. Who is she?
 * Please explain in detail why you have removed the sourced content I added, sentence by sentence.
 * Page 33 of Warder says: "The shramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed to be in possession of revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. They ridiculed the complicated rituals, and tried to show the absurdity of the Veda, as a canon of ultimate truths ... The shramanas went further than this and declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy against the public by the brahmans for the purpose of enriching themselves by charging exorbitant fees for the performance of bogus rites and the giving of futile advice." . So that is why I removed the qualification "absolute": they rejected the authority altogether.
 * I removed added "Brahmanical" after traditional because ancient India also had other religious traditions, i.e. the muni cults mentioned in the Rig Veda, etc. There are many secondary sources available on this that I can direct you to if you are interested.

This lists the differences between the current version and the one to which you most recently reverted. Please explain why you made the changes you did. Mitsube (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont have to explain myself to you. You are the one who has made all the changes to this section and there for you are the one who is meant to do the explaining.
 * You have not shown any evidence to support why you are changing this section other than your own personal opinion. UkFaith (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
I am pointing out that I am not prepared to be bullied in this way. I work for a respectable software house in London as a senior engineer and I too probably colleagues that can guide me through bringing this behaviour to the attention of the correct person. UkFaith (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have brought your situation to the attention of the correct people by placing an unblock request on your page, which has alerted site admins. Being incivil and ranting in all caps isn't going to help your case, however.  Exploding Boy (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am entitled to be upset since I have been treated to badly and I particularly dislike being bullied by other people who play nasty. UkFaith (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
You know what....dont bother...in the short time I have been involved in Wikipedia I have found the admin to be corrupt. I put one edit on a disputed article and got banned for it! UkFaith (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't been banned, you've been blocked from editing for 24 hours. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant blocked, but I still think the admin are corrupt and support acts of vandalism from what I have seen. you never even looked into my request!!
 * Your currently aiding someone remove information that was referenced to a world leader in his field to replace it with his own words! well done...good job. UkFaith (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can think what you like, but your behaviour isn't helping you to be unblocked. I declined your first unblock request due to the issue of the apparent threat you had posted: possible risk to Wikipedia takes precedence over your desire to edit.  Another admin will review your second request (assuming you've changed your mind and want us to actually bother).  Exploding Boy (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont believe you have understood anything I have said....So much for right to not be attacked or bullied. UkFaith (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you feel you've been unfairly blocked, perhaps even blocked in violation of policy. I've explained to you why I declined your first unblock request, and also that your second request will be handled by a different admin.  Exploding Boy (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not be any unhappier than I am right now. I can see absolutley no point what so ever in trying to contribute to Wikipedia since this is how you treat people.
 * No wonder so many have already abandoned your project.UkFaith (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not find anything at all in Wikipedia guides that gives you the right to block me for entering a single edit on a disputed section of an article. It is rediculous to call it edit waring and is a personal attack against me. I am completely within my right to dispute others changes with out fear of intimidation or persecution —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkFaith (talk • contribs)


 * Me, personally? I think I've been quite polite to you.  In any case, I've just had a look over your edit history, and what I see is that you've reverted multiple times, are quick to accuse others of vandalism, have failed to garner support for at least some of your edits, and appear to be rather easily frustrated in talk page discussions.  Wikipedia can be frustrating at times.  Things tend to happen slowly as consensus building takes time, and ultimately things do not always go our way; that's the nature of the beast, and working in a cooperative environment is not for everyone.  I must say, though, I find it ironic that people would edit war over Buddhism...  Exploding Boy (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your very quick to judge me but if you look more closely I actually only reverted a coupleof times but Mitsube spreads his 'edit' over many edits to make it hard for anyone to revert them. This guy deleted the entire section! without any discussion! ...and when he could not get his own way deleting he then started doing massive edits chaning the view of the section...The only thing I ever reverted was to restore what was the original section and requested a discussion...Mitsube, who is a far better politician than me, and who has been on Wiki far longer than I have, completely ignored this request and went about getting his own way via dirty games. This is not what I was looking for on Wikipedia. UkFaith (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did delete the section (once), but with discussion. Please stop falsely accusing me of things. You have done it multiple times and it is in my mind a personal attack. There are no dirty games. Please try to focus on what is actually happening and just explain yourself as you have been requested above. I am happy to work with you but you need to work with others as well. Mitsube (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You deleted an entire section before any discussion. You had absolutely no grounds what so ever for that action. You also deleted every single edit of mine in which I tried to restore the section and have called my edits vandalism from the very beginning which IS a personal attack intedened to discredit me. You have also ignored all my requests to discuss this matter on the talk page. You are only now saying you wish to work together because I am now unfairly blocked again and can not challenge your edits in any way. As per my previous posts I will be reporting your actions which are not inline with Wiki guides. UkFaith (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More falsehoods. This isn't doing you any good. Mitsube (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing false in what I have just said and is completely auditable, thankfully.
 * Since I will be reporting you Mitsube I request that you do not post on my talk page anymore until this is resolved since your remarks are inflaming the situation further. Please respect my request. Thankyou UkFaith (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that you inadvertently copied the Unblock declined template for your second unblock request, which is probably part of the reason nobody's reviewed it yet. I've now changed it to an unreviewed request. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. UkFaith (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely give up. Its now over five and a half hours since I asked for this block to be removed. Its the principle.
 * What kind of people do you honestly think are going to stick around and put up with crap like this... UkFaith (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It can take days for an unblock request to be reviewed; what part of "we're all volunteers here" are you missing? At any rate, now that (if my calculations are accurate) your sixth unblock request has been declined, it's time to use the remaining few hours of your block to read up on the relevant policies so you don't find yourself in a similar situation in the future.  Some suggestions to get you started: WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:VANDAL.  Exploding Boy (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Help request
. How do I start a complaint against an admin person ...is there a hierarchy? Why is my unblock request not being looked into?


 * In response to your first question, there is no "complaint process" per se on Wikipedia. There is a mediation process dispute resolution process, however.  You could post to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to request a review of the block, but you would have to wait until you're unblocked.


 * In response to your second question, we are all volunteers here, and unblock requests, like everything else, take time; be patient. Your block will expire soon anyway.  Exploding Boy (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * To quote from Appealing a block, "In principle, any blocked user may appeal their block to the Arbitration committee as a last resort, after other attempts to have the block lifted have failed. In practice, the Arbitration committee rarely (if ever) hears cases involving short-term blocks, since most arbitration cases take at least 4 weeks to reach a final decision.  Allegations that an administrator has acted improperly by making a block can be dealt with more efficiently by the dispute resolution process after the block has expired."


 * Your unblock request will, no doubt, be processed as soon as someone is available to do so. We are all volunteers, so please be patient. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chzz -- I mean DR not Mediation. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * However, to quote the top of ANI: "For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here.". ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''After being warned to not revert you did so anyways. Take a few calm down being angry doesn't help.'' Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who did I attack?
 * Everyone pretty much. Spartaz Humbug! 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How things work on Wikipedia
Okay, looking through your edits, it looks like you need some help. Let me explain how things work here.


 * 1) First, and most important, on wikipedia, it is who you know. If you have not build relationships with the powerful on wikipedia, and go up against someone who is powerful or knows powerful people, you lose.
 * 2) Second, never call editors deleting edits "vandalism". I feel it is vadalism too, but you can't say that here. there are certain taboo words on wikipedia. That is one of them.
 * 3) Third, you were blocked for WP:3RR. Without looking at the edit history, it was probably legit. The veteran editor knew when to stop with a 3RR, and that was why he was not blocked. Avoid 4 and even 3 revisions.  As a new editor now, just be careful. Discuss it on the talk page instead, but keep in mind that those editors probably have friends which will join the conversation.
 * 4) Fourth, add edit differences if you are going to complain. There are no links to your 3RR, there are no links to anything you say, editors will not find these edits themselves, instead they will dismiss what you say
 * 5) Fifth, don't go to ANI unless you know you have editors that will back you up, especially if you are complaining about a powerful editor.
 * 6) sixth, your ANI was too long. Most editors, like me, will never read everything you say. What I write here is about the limit of how long something should be.
 * 7) Seventh, unblock requests are almost always ignored. The only time they are ever granted is if the person is petinent, apologic, and humble.

At this point, you are too new here to do much to fight against these deletions.

If you persist you will be blocked for good, as most new editors are.

If you are smart you will realize that all of these edits are in the edit history, and you can wait several months, edit and learn how wikipedia really works, before arguing again this issue.

I abandoned an article once too, if I hadn't I would be banned now. It is hard to do, but it is the smart thing to do. Ikip (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You may want to read WP:DICK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With all respect, I think the above is mostly nonsense. All you need to do to enjoy your experience on Wikipedia is be patient, be polite, be cooperative, and follow the rules.  The way I see it, UK, you have a tendency to be impatient, get frustrated, and make things worse by getting worked up.  Calm down, get over the idea that everyone's out to get you, discuss discuss discuss, and you'll be fine.   Exploding Boy (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not open the ANI thread again. You're becoming disruptive, and pretty much have turned even those who believed you against you.  Stop.  Seriously ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also reiterate the point that the above advice is purely nonsense, mostly self-serving, and completely unhelpful. The advice-giver, in fact, has had his own difficulties in collaboration, and no doubt sees you as a potential ally to be enlisted in his battles. --Calton | Talk 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was rather piety Calton and absurd. I notice you are now WP:hounding me, stop now. Ikip (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No more personal attacks
You asked earlier what you'd done which was a personal attack. This was a personal attack:


 * == you had no right to do that,. You have no respect for people what so ever. ==
 * You have no respect for people what so ever.

Core Wikipedia values include editing in a civil and respectful manner, assuming good faith about other participants, and not making personal attacks.

You have been assuming bad faith, making multiple personal attacks, and being rude to everyone who has tried to talk to you or discuss the situation with you.

Please respect the other people who are around you. We're human beings too. We're not just writing on the screen. You've yelled at, insulted, and accused dozens of people. Please think for a bit about all of their feelings.

I understand that this has you stressed, and that Mitsube's section deletion that started this all upset you greatly and was not the best way to work on the content issue they saw. However - your responses since then have been rude and abusive to him, others on the Talk:Buddhism page, William, and everyone who's tried to help you on WP:ANI.

This has to stop now. If you cannot discuss the incident in a calm and polite manner going forwards, please stop using Wikipedia for a few days until you calm down. If you continue to abuse people you will be blocked. I do not want to do that to you - but you've caused a major incident by responding so badly to so many people now. It's over now. Either it's over because you take a break, or it's over because you will take a deep breath and calm down, or it's over because your next edit if still abusive will be followed by a long block on your account. This is your choice. I hope you will take a short break, it will probably be healthy for your right now. If you can calm down and chose to keep editing and don't attack anyone else, that's ok too. But I or other admins will block you if you attack anyone else.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi there! I wanted to talk to you not as another editor on Wikipedia, not to start giving you links to policies that you should read, or repeat the same rules to you, but just as one person to another. Feel free to ignore me if you want, but at the same time feel free to leave a message on my talk page just as a person who can talk plainly.

I've been editing for a couple of years now but I remember what it was like when I started, and I also see where you're coming from. You came here and saw some edits on an article that you disagreed with, they seemed to be totally screwing up the article. You tried to fix it back and was called a vandal just for trying to help. So you tried to fix it again, and it got put back again. It's almost like trying to keep the wall of your house nice and white, and then a child starts marking it up with a permanent pen! Then, to make everything worse, the child goes and tells on you, and you are taken away from the wall which still has the ugly black marks all over it.

Wikipedia has a process for making changes that is probably the only way a project like this can work, but it can be difficult to get adjusted to. I understand what you did, and why, and why you're frustrated now. I hope I can help with that, help you understand what's happening and help you give the input that you want to do without being ganged up on the way you have been.

Essentially, if you see a change that happens on a page that's wrong it's okay to undo it. Vandalism happens all the time, where people screw up an article on purpose to get their kicks. People also make mistakes, either because they don't understand a source they are quoting, or they have some preconceived notion that is incorrect, or because they are a total loon who thinks that aliens are trying to mind-control everyone. So if you see an edit that you disagree with that's clearly wrong, change it, which is what you did.

But here is where the frustrating part starts. If that editor changes things back, no matter how crazy, wrong, or stupid the edit is, if you try to fix it back again on your own that's what people here call an edit-war. At that point you are in dispute with someone over what the article says, and it doesn't matter which of you is correct, you shouldn't change it back again. It seems to go against common sense; something is screwed up, so you fix it, right? That's how professionals and sane people go about their business. But because this project is supposed to be thousands of people working together it's not the way things work here.

What you are supposed to do is take it to the talk page of the article and have your say there. Explain what is wrong with the article and why you're changing it. Explain what the other editor did and why their edit is wrong. Don't address what is wrong with the other person, just what they did. I've seen some editors that should be locked up because of their theories and beliefs, but just go along with it. If your suggestion is correct, other people will agree with you. What happens on the talk page is then considered consensus, which is the golden rule in Wikipedia. If most people agree (hopefully everyone will agree) then the article should be edited to reflect this. Sometimes that consensus is difficult to reach, it can take days or weeks and might require bringing in people who don't normally pay attention to that kind of article. But you need to have other people on your side when you are in a disagreement or you won't get your way, even if you are right.

One of the really great things about Wikipedia is that each page has an edit history. That means that it doesn't matter how screwed up a page is, it take seconds to fix it back. So there's no rush to fix a page. If someone goes around making dozens of incorrect edits, don't worry. It's not a big deal. It can be fixed back with one click at any time once people agree that it's the right thing to do.

There's one last thing I want to address, and that is, what to do if people don't agree with you. I speak from the perspective of someone who has been in that situation more than once. Basically if you are in the minority, especially if you are the only one arguing your point, it's best to walk away. I've lost in discussions before, it happens to everyone. You have to take your losses with dignity and work on something else. I always figure one of two things... Either there is a gang of wrong-headed people working against me and there's no way I can win against them no matter how I try, or maybe I really was wrong all along and they were correct. In any case you have to pick your battles.

If you really want to work on Wikipedia what's most important is figuring out how to get along with people. Most people really mean best and do want to help out, they're here just like you wanting to make this place better. Even someone who disagrees with you, or blocks you might be turned to your side. Just tell them you're sorry, or say you need their advice. People will warm up to you better that way. That's the only way to get along here though. If you just can't bring yourself to do that, if you can't swallow your feelings when you feel wronged, you probably won't make it here. Anyway, I hope you can, I think you truly do mean well and just got into a bad situation that spiraled out of control, and again feel free to post on my page if you have ANY questions. Thanks! --  At am a chat 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had to block you
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

abusive admin
You can delete me...ban me..block me...call me names..put me down...ignore me and be as abusive to me as you wish - I am not affraid of you.

Just remember - this is over a simple article that was edited in a deceitful way that you refuse to accept AND you refuse to even discuss.


 * I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. (Mahatma Gandhi)

I promise you I will raise this issue every day I am able until you ban me and then you can live with your decision. UkFaith (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed your block settings to indefinite per your threat to continue disruptive editing once the block expires. You are welcome to request an unblock if you agree to stop and start actually contributing to the encyclopedia.  I encourage you to take some time for self reflection and read the advise numerous people who wanted to help you spent hours typing for you.  When you are ready to move on, I will be happy to grant an unblock.  However, we can't have you wasting everybody's time on your personal quest to punish "abuse" that no one else judged to be abuse. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are declaring you will disrupt the site? If you aren't here to improve the site leave, do us a favor and yourself because we don't want you. If you want to collaborate which a clear example is everyone above trying to help you then stay, but please choose soon!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you decide to alter your behavior or at least put this aside, I'll renew my offer to help you affect the changes you want to in a different way. Sometimes it takes someone to be the bigger man and I really think it can be you if you try. Sometimes not every injustice real or perceived canbe acted upon or righted. Sometimes we have to drop things and get over it, as it stand remember WMC is undergoing an Arbcom case that will be examing every edit he has made so even though nothing happened at ANI arbcom could still find her did or didn't abuse his tools. Just try to ignore him.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL you are so full of it...Hell in a bucket...you have gone out of your way to cause me as much trouble as you could...so please!


 * I will conitinue, as per my right, to make a complaint regarding the above. You can as you have continue to shut me up and threaten me...If I wanted to cause trouble I could have a new IP and an account in two minutes.


 * You have acted abusively to me and, if given the opportunity, I will make a formal complaint as per my right. UkFaith (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way this is not the only blog on the net and you will all be answerable one day :) UkFaith (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a gander at WP:FREE. You have no rights here. You broke the rules, and, if you continue to make abusive requests like you have been, this page will be locked, preventing further editing by yourself.


 * Secondly, wikipedia is not a blog. Any blog-like posts will be deleted.  I've dealt with your kind before, the kind that can't fathom they did any wrong, the kind that think there is a cabal out to get them, rather than admit to any wrong.  You won't get far.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right I filed all of the ANI threads and attacked every editor that came to help you, I also conspired with WMC to have you blocked for edit warring. Take a chill pill and reread everything, If I was the one responsible for this everyone would be on my talkpage telling me I was out of line, you do not understand wikipedia policies and when several people offer to teqach you them you continue to say we are wrong and you are right but offer nothing to back up how we broke any policy. Take a long hard honest look in the mirror and admit you are wrong, it's ok all of do it from time to time, but take responsibility for your own behavior and choices.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

 * It was a proper request...I just knew you would decline it and say anything to justify...like everyone else on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkFaith (talk • contribs)


 * No, it wasn't a proper request, hence me saying "declined because this is not a proper unblock request." Given that this is your seventh use of the unblock template, you should know by now that you must follow the instructions at WP:GAB.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. Your block has been changed to indefinite. It will not expire.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear about a few things. First, there is no such thing as the "right to edit Wikipedia."  This is the site that "anyone can edit," but only as long as they abide by the community's standards.  Second, there is no such thing as a "formal complaint" here, as has been explained to you repeatedly.  Third, you are being disruptive; I fully supported the most recent 24 hour block, and the more you keep on the more I'm supporting the indefinate block as well.  Several editors have tried to discuss things with you and to explain how things work here; I really don't know how else to help you, UkFaith.  I am willing to answer specific questions, but at this stage an unblock will require a major change in your approach, and a clear demonstration that you understand the reasons for your blocks.  Exploding Boy (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah lets get something straight. If I wanted to cause trouble as you claim I could have a new IP everyday for the next month. I could use every other net connection I come into contact with which for me is considerable since I am a software developer in london so dot kid yourserlves that I am a trouble making and you are doing the right thing! ...I was wrongly and deceitefully messed around by Mitsube and Connolly. If you have just spoke to me about this and have a conversation this would have ended long ago...bit you chose to strong arm and play suptid games....so here we are. UkFaith (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a fair watrning you're pretty close to being blocked on your own talkpage, it really sucks it happened to me so I would read what makes unblock requests successful for your own sake.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you want to cause trouble, I said you're being disruptive. I've lost count of how many other users have tried to talk to you but you've refused to engage.  So as I said above, if you have specific questions, I will try to answer them.  Please drop the issue with William Connelly, however.  It's been dealt with thoroughly, via six unblock requests and three threads on AN/I: unfair though you may believe it to be, it's over.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow Hell In A Bucket you I believe are the most spiteful person I have met on Wikipedia...now trying to incite a block on my own talk page....you are really something and you must think everyone around here is stupid! UkFaith (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not one person was interested on what I had to say on any subject. Everyone just wanted to tell me I was wrong without even looking at any point I raised. UkFaith (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we Protect his user page
At this point the user will not accept anything the community will say and is very disruptive. Please prtect his user page. He takes as. Enough is enough.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are really somthingUkFaith (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)