Argopelter

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

October 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Im Yoona. Your edit summaries appear to constitute vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Edit summaries like "YOONA IS MAI WAIFU :3" must stop or you will be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How is that vandalism? Argopelter (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use the edit summary field to assault and make false claims about other people. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of assaulting mai waifu? :3 Argopelter (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Dr.K., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Argopelter, "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page." (WP:ES). Your edit summaries to the article Im Yoona, where you call her "mai waifu" are inappropriate. Not sure what you mean by calling her that, but you're ONLY supposed to describe the edit you're making to the article, not inject your personal feelings about the subject. Don't do it anymore. Also, don't call an editor a "jerk". It's uncivil and might be construed as a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"mai waifu" is a term of endearment. Should I not call him a jerk, even if he is one? There is no reason to jump down my throat in the manner he did. Argopelter (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• One more warning on his talk page, one more revert on his talk page, and you'll be blocked. Stop it. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  When did I revert his talk page? That's what he's been doing to me, not me to him! Argopelter (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please stay away from his talk page. I am sure Dr. K. will do the same for you. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope he does. He is not a very nice man. :( Argopelter (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

Your edit on Hendrik Wade Bode is clear evidence of hounding. Stay away from Dr. K. and their articles, and I'm using "their" in the broad sense of the term. I will block you, since you've gone far enough. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How the hell is adding a tag hounding? Argopelter (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Tell me how adding a "not in citation given" tag is doing that. Argopelter (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just stay away. You singled out that article because it was his. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Singled it out to improve it. Doesn't anyone assume good faith here? Jesus. Argopelter (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure we do, for a while, and Jesus too. You link to AGF, as if I don't know that, but you may not be aware of Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You avoided my earlier question, so I'll ask it again. How is adding a tag repeatedly inhibiting his work? How is that a bad thing? Shouldn't you be happy that I'm actually trying to work to improve an article that he created? Why are you twisting policy to make me guilty of hounding, when I have done no such thing? Am I somehow destroying his work by pointing out the fact that a citation doesn't actually support what it is cited by? Argopelter (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I ignored it since it's not relevant. You could try and turn one of their articles into an FA and I'd block you for singling out their article to work on. We have millions of articles; stay away from theirs. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And now you're going through my history (Charles M. Huber). Cute. Don't bother trying to get my goat; it ran away years ago. And now I'm done with you: you're either tonedeaf or bored. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to threaten to block me for that, too? Argopelter (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You would block me for improving the article? Are you even listening to yourself? Argopelter (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 05:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you return from your block to continue your disruptive editing, longer block periods will result. Tiderolls 05:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a more specific reason instead of just a vague generalization? Argopelter (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You were warned and chose to continue your disruption. You convinced me that you would not stop. Tiderolls 05:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was warned by someone who clearly does not have the best interests of the project in mind. He's twisting WP:HOUND to his own advantage: mainly ignoring the bits about repeatedly inhibiting [an editor's] work. He even said that he would block me if I brought an article to FA status, he would block me for hounding. Argopelter (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And now you're employing personal attacks; I suggest you stop, take stock of the situation and find a way to contribute here within the policies and guidelines of this project. Tiderolls 05:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? (And could you actually address my concerns instead of dismissing them? How did I violate WP:HOUND?) Argopelter (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of acting against the best interest of the project? Yes, that's a personal attack. You were not blocked for hounding; you were blocked for disruption. Tiderolls 05:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

When an editor tells me that he would ban me for bringing an article to FA status, I can't help but think that there's something wrong there. How was I disruptive? I was bitten pretty hard by Dr. K, and responded accordingly. That led to him repeatedly pestering me with notifications, noticeboard postings, and reverts. I then went to his contribution history and saw a name I knew, Hendrik Wade Bode. I thought to my self "oh, I know this guy. Maybe I can contribute to the article." I first noticed that a citation was misused (used to support information that wasn't in it), and tagged it accordingly. I then saved the page, and before I could decide what to do next to improve the article, I was accused of repeatedly inhibiting an editor's work, i.e. hounding. I found this ridiculous. Not only did I do no such thing, but I also improved the encyclopedia, and was subsequently threatened and admonished for it. So tell me, where in there did I disrupt? Argopelter (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've explained this previously. It's obvious that you disagree. You should make use of the unblock template to request review from another admin. Tiderolls 05:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

[ec] And then you went through my edits, and found two more names you knew... Don't misquote me: I didn't say I would block you for bringing an article up to FA. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The citation was not misused. The citation www.bell-labs.com was perfectly fine and did support the fact in the past but later was redirected to a new URL. Don't accuse other editors of misusing citations. I never misuse citations. Ever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Then it's a misunderstanding. Chill out. Argopelter (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Argopelter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How was I disruptive? I was bitten pretty hard by Dr. K, and responded accordingly. That led to him repeatedly pestering me with notifications, noticeboard postings, and reverts. Naturally, I was intimidated by this. But I kept my calm, and I looked at his contribution history and saw a name I knew, Hendrik Wade Bode. I thought to my self "oh, I know this guy. Maybe I can contribute to the article and show Dr. K that I'm not the vandal he thinks I am." I first noticed that a citation was (apparently) outdated, and tagged it accordingly. I then saved the page, and before I could decide what to do next to improve the article, I was accused of repeatedly inhibiting an editor's work. I found this ridiculous. Not only did I do no such thing, but I also improved the encyclopedia, and was subsequently admonished for it. I was given no reason aside from something effectively amounting to "shut up and listen to me". I began to question the user's motives when he said that, if I were to bring Hendrik Wade Bode to FA status, he would block me for "repeatedly inhibiting an editors work". That makes no sense, and would only serve to hurt the project! I then looked at the user's (Drmies) contributions, hoping to show him that I am not a vandal as well, by editing articles that he had. This is NOT hounding! While I didn't know a whole lot about Sudha Murthy or Charles M. Huber, I didn't think that it would inhibit me from doing general cleanup. I guess I was wrong. Apparently that's disruption and an awful thing to do, and I'm sorry.

Decline reason:

You in no way adequately addressed the disruptive behavior that resulted in this block. You were indeed being disruptive with your inappropriate edit summaries, edit warring on another user's talk page, and misrepresenting the statements of other editors. As far as WP:HOUNDING, you were clearly and repeatedly following the edits of others here with "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Dreadstar ☥ 06:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.