User talk:Winnerex

Welcome
Hello, Winnerex, 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   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Winnerex, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

March 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Neil deGrasse Tyson was changed by Winnerex (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951922 on 2014-03-01T03:33:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Neil deGrasse Tyson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.

A person with a PhD degree in something can't be called "self-proclaimed". Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet an "Astrophysicist" with a PhD is allowed to make false claims about the subject on national television? Surely there is a divide on how to properly address Neil Tyson. He firmly believes "the universe emerged from a point smaller than a single atom." That is a direct quote. Tell me any astronomer, astrologist, astrophysicist, or physicist that would validate that claim. It goes against the very fundamentals of known physics, and it's a no-brainer why that word appears in "astroPHYSICS." He must be a self-proclaimed "astrophysicist" to hold such an inherently flawed belief. To the matter of him being a comedian somehow being my own personal view, I offer you the challenge of finding a YouTube video of Neil Tyson where he isn't joking and smiling and making the audience laugh when he appears at debates or interviews. He is a comedian. Winnerex (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree, in part. A person with a PhD degree in something can be called a self-proclaimed "something else".  For example, a PhD in nutrition does not qualify one to be an expert in medicine, but such a person could be (and I can name a number who are correctly) called a "self-proclaimed" expert in medicine.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not to say that I will not block you if you repeat the type of edit referred to here, which, if not vandalism, is extraordinarily stupid. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * constructive edits are stupid now? Right, gotcha. Thanks for the tip. Winnerex (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, none of your edits (so far) are constructive. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not only just your opinion, but also a creepy one considering you've practically been stalking me watching my edits and commenting on my page. If the only definition for what merits a constructive edit is whether or not it gets rolled back, then I can't affirm you as anything but a self-entitled vandal. Winnerex (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, I've been watching your edits. Once I see an editor making inappropriate or non-constructive edits, I check other edits made by that editor.  If I had found a constructive edit, I would have said so.  I haven't.  Some of your edits are not actively destructive.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it wasn't clear, but unless your next edit of my talk page is explaining how I can block you from making future edits, then I'm not expecting any further communication. You continue harassing me and I will report you to a sysop. Winnerex (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's some additional clarity; if you continue your disruptive edits, you'll be the one getting blocked. Given the way this new account has "jumped into the fire," (attacking experienced editors with little provocation) you're most likely a sock of a banned user. If anyone can give me some WP:DUCK evidence, I'll gladly block now. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * attacking? You're absolutely crazy. He's the one attacking me, reverting my edits and posting vandalism accusations on my page. I've done nothing wrong. No wonder there's so much misinformation on Wikipedia, just ban any and every one who tries to contribute! Winnerex (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling, or not being able to contribute constructively (not quite sure which one). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't made a page edit since, and all other action towards me has been uncalled for and abusive. Regardless of redundant user-crafted policies, OhNoItsJamie's unprovoked accusation towards me seemed like an obvious case of Arthur Rubin reporting me after I explicitly asked him to cease harassing me, which was already days after my most recent edit. I'm reporting sketchy administrative work where I see it and calling it how it is. I also did not vandalize Neil Degrasse Tyson's page. I made no inflammatory or defaming remarks, and I only added the extra identifier of him as a comedian while changing his title of "Astrophysicist" to "self-proclaimed astrophysicist," as he does indeed claim to be an astrophysicist yet have little to no working knowledge on the subject. It's important to not spread misinformation by reading his page and assuming he is an actual astrophysicist. He's merely a popular-science personality. Winnerex (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just blocked and even prevented from editing my own talk page, against the Administrator's suggestion that I reply on my talk page to appeal the block. What has turned into one administrator supporting user abuse has become a gross abuse of power on part of multiple administrators. If this isn't the Wikipedia Editor mentality then it's too bad there isn't an example in better light. I have done nothing wrong and was banned on the grounds of reporting user and admin abuse that is obviously apparent here on my page and no where else. They came to my page an attacked me. They reverted my edits. And now they've blocked me from editing even my own talk page despite explicitly encouraging me to respond on my own talk page to appeal. This is a gross abuse of power across multiple administrators accounts. Winnerex (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Worse yet, my report on the administrator abuse reporting form has been forcibly removed by someone who isn't me in effort to cover up this gross abuse of power. The Wikipedia Foundation and editors involved should be absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Winnerex (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The first few posts here are copy pasted from the original abuse report which has been deleted by someone else. This is all the necessary proof. Winnerex (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The posts in the appeal box are what were on the original report form, whereafter I was immediately blocked from arguing and unable to reply while my report was removed by another user from the page. The immediate post after the appeal box was to be my reply, yet when I went to save the page and add the reply I'd discovered I was blocked. This block is absolutely unecessary and an obscene abuse of power against user privileges. Winnerex (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Noting here that I was about to do this myself but Only beat me to it. I'm not unblocking someone who classifies this as an "explicitly constructive edit". If you absolutely feel you must spend more of your time appealing a block that will not be overturned, your final route of appeal is the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, --(ʞɿɐʇ)  ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Forget the Tyson article, you blanked Fringe theories twice! Removing all of the content on an article is textbook vandalism, especially when it is done to make a point. The only way you can get unblocked at this point is if you accept responsibility for making nonconstructive edits and stop claiming abuse when the admins were just doing their job, trying to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And (while with TPA revoked, it's rather moot at this point) I might add that nobody "approved" any content (while Neil DeGrasse Tyson does have Pending Changes, you were set to have edits autoaccepted), and the page has not been "locked" since 2013 - and even if it had been, The Wrong Version applies, making what was on the page when it was locked irrelvant to whether or not that content was right. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)