Progressive reactionary

Progressive reactionary, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Progressive reactionary! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Larry Lawton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Say that word one more time and I will block you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"vandalism," lol. Yeah, epic vandalism bro. next level. be glad ya got me when ya did. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&action=edit&section=3. Read that btw. "Fluff" is a wholly unacceptable reason for reverting someone else's work. But you know that already. "I have privileges here therefore my opinion matters more". That mentality. Some other mod guy reverted me thinking that "uninteresting" was also a valid reason, and was belligerent with me for suggesting otherwise. You all arrogate yourselves to the position of arbiter of what is or isn't "fluff" or "uninteresting", entirely subjective terms, and feel you don't need to justify yourself in any sort of acceptable way to lowly plebs like myself. When confronted, especially by new users, you're openly hostile and belligerent. You slam down on them using all the powers the website has given to you. Pathetic really. This website is infested by people like this, and you're a prime example. It put me off joining here for yeaaaaaaars. I regret having done so. To hell with this. Such arrogant and disrespectful behaviour in reverting people's work is clearly a breach of WP policy on civility (one of the five pillars if I understand correctly), but that obviously doesn't apply to any of you lot. You've no idea how many people you put off joining here with your hostile arrogance. I stand by what I said. Fare thee well and enjoy thinking you're above people.Progressive reactionary (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no mods. I don't think it's useful to lecture on civility when you insist calling stuff 'retarded' and calling people a 'fucking pussy'. Frankly I'm normally strongly critical of inappropriately calling something vandalism, and actually I do agree it was wrong here, but your behaviour means for once, I don't really care. If you would learn to interact with people in a more appropriate manner, perhaps people would actually care about what you have to say. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My response was undeniably and unquestionably UNCIVIL as that was what I intended. I abandoned any pretence of trying to be polite. At least I know that and admit it. I've stopped caring. I was tempted to respond politely, as I've done with all my other encounters with people here, but why? What difference will it make? These people won't change and I'm sick of it. The pomposity and arrogance of certain 'elite' users here is simply revolting. Time and time again I see peoples work desecrated with such disrespectful edit summaries that even a 4th grade English teacher wouldn't consider acceptable. When called out on this and asked to provide a legitimate reason for their revert, we're met with responses like "Do NOT edit war. Go to the talk page and DO NOT hold discussions in edit summaries." Why are they so supercilious and hostile in their edit summaries? Why can't they just respect other peoples work? "uninteresting", "fluff", and "boring" are not acceptable in any academic sense, yet these lot get away with it all day. I've genuinely stopped caring now mate, that's why I said what I said. You also seem to think I'm trying to be "unbanned" or something. Obviously not. I made it quite clear I'm done here, hence the tirade. Why should I be polite when new users are faced with tripe like this constantly. Thousands and thousands of people driven away by this. You have no idea. I've tried to be polite in the past, but this incident was the last straw. This paragraph is merely an archive of my reasoning. Enjoy your little private realm all the big-wig users have created here. You all obviously have serious power/domination issues that your day-to-day life doesn't let you properly sate. Rather you take them out here than in real life. Luckily I'd just placed the finishing touches on the only article I'll write here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Sinclair and it was one too many in my opinion. Progressive reactionary (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at what blew up - the edit history at Larry Lawton, it all seemed quite civil to me, until you used the "R" word. Points for honesty about wanting to be blocked - but points lost for trying to pretend that others were uncivil first. "fluff" is hardly uncivil - and appears accurate. I'm surprised that someone with so many grammatical and spelling errors in the edit summaries is calling out others' 4th grade English! Good block. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea what educational system you're a product of, but only someone as equally arrogant as the person in question (or a child) would justify the use of the term "fluff" in any sort of academic setting. It's use is utterly inconceivable for me. As it should be for any person with even the slightest modicum of respect for others here. Firstly, there's no objective, demonstrable means of calculating what is or isn't 'fluff'-- whatever that term even means. All I know is that it's not an acceptable excuse for removing someone else's hard work (not even my work btw). And leads to edit wars as clearly defined by Wikipedia:Reverting. I struggle to comprehend how anyone can take an utterly subjective word like that and try excuse its use on a website of this nature. But you arrogate yourselves to the position of arbiter on this matter, and that is something I'll never accept with any degree of civility. What gives anyone the right to decide what is or isn't 'fluff' in an encyclopaedic context? Not good enough. Truly baffling. You claim denouncing someone's work as 'fluff' isn't uncivil. Okay, try spending an hour or two researching and writing, just for some jumped up admin guy to come along and dismiss it, using only that subjective word without adding any further justification-- and indeed-- being hostile with people when called out on it (as has happened to me many times). It seems far too many people here regard such arrogance as 'civil behaviour' (yourself included) and that's what's drove me away.

I never once stated that anyone's grammar here was tantamount to that of a 4th grade English teacher (which would still presumably be good grammar?), perhaps you should learn to read. I said even a 4th grade English teacher wouldn't regard "fluff" or "uninteresting" as an acceptable form of debate. As for your remark about my grammar in edit summaries, I won't tell you what my occupation is, but I assure you, it involves a lot of writing, and if you think I care even in the slightest bit about my grammar on something as trivial as [what is essentially] a comment section of this website, you're horrifically mistaken. Laughably so. As long as they can be read it, I don't care-- at least I try and justify any work I've reverted to the very best of my ability. Same can't be said for most here. Like I say, clear power/dominance issues are the reason behind their behaviour in my opinion. Rather here than the real world though.Progressive reactionary (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens level of destruction. Good to take you off your high horse.Progressive reactionary (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And you deleting said article out of spite rather than properly addressing my points above only affirms my opinion of the type of sad individuals that infest here. How childish can you be?Progressive reactionary (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Article has been a redirect for most of the last decade. It's been returned to that state about a dozen times by many different editors, with no support to keep at AFD. If there's consensus otherwise, someone can restore the text. Hmm ... someone who tried to implement the same text back for that article back in 2016, also edited the Peter Hitchens article. Hmm, and similar IPs to the person who kept doing it back in 2012, and similar to a 2010 editor. So basically, it's been you IP editing this article for 10 years now, despite several editors redirecting it. Digging further, you appear to be the previously blocked user User:Atlas Ryan Atlas Ryan who created this article in the first place, and unprodded it in August 2010 before being blocked for sock puppetry and being User:Georgey Bailey. Probably a few more personas as well if I could be bothered to dig deeper. Nfitz (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I was amazed it stayed up as long as it did. I dropped that link there above in a subsequent edit to see if you'd be sad enough to do anything about it, and unsurprisingly you did. Why else do you think I retrospectively added it. But the strenuous lengths you seem to have subjected yourself to in order to 'get me' here shocked even me-- embarrassingly sad on your part. Indeed, your attempts at sleuthing had me in stitches. Arbitrarily accusing me, a 23 year old, with no proof other than "you appear", of being the owner of an account created and dead since 2010 was the most ludicrous example. Nonetheless, certain statements you made had me pondering. For example, you accused me of reverting the article from a redirect-- I had no memory of this-- 1 or 2 clicks, however, reveals 188.138.9.180 did this last year. That was when I noticed its existence and my expansion of it began. If you look at every other version that existed before late 2019 (when I first touched it), you'll see it is unrecognisable. In fact, it appears it was just copied from the BioShock wiki. Under no circumstances would I consider that encyclopaedic. Thankfully 95% of what I added was copied and pasted from various sources, I suspect your digging through ancient accounts was more time consuming. I've never once edited Peter Hitchens' article, but I suspect many people have--he is the UK's most prominent journalist, Sherlock. Anyway, this was an interesting experience. Seriously, this whole thing has been like some kind of intriguing social experiment. Trying to get inside the minds of you people is fascinating. But please, if there are any other ridiculous things you'd like to come out with in order to camouflage all my other posts and ignore them, by all means. It really was funny. Lol. That atlas ryan guy even has "retired" written on his page. You really think i'd do that or even know how? I'm the sort of guy to tell you to **** off. As shown.Progressive reactionary (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nfitz, thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem Drmies - and I think it took less time than it took for them to write that last rant. For the record, the same IP that they've already admitted to using, is the same Berkshire provider that dates back to some of the earliest edits. This one is so obvious, it's not even worth the trouble of a formal check user or sock puppet investigation! And you learn something new every day - I'd never heard of Peter Hitchens before - apparently he's a journalist for the Daily Mail, and very right-wing ... perhaps that says it all, haven't we banned the Mail here too?  :) Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've indefinitely blocked you for harassing and abusive comments on your talk page. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

no shit, sherlock, I asked to beProgressive reactionary (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this user also edit as User:86.28.92.103? Nfitz (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. Please read WP:CIVIL-- Deepfriedokra 17:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Neutrality, Nfitz, Deepfriedokra, Nil Einne, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelChekov01. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: 2009? So you mean all this 'put me off joining for years' etc stuff is bull? (Unless they meant before 2009 but I doubt it and suspect this didn't begin then anyway.) Why am I not surprised. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thanks to the sleuthing of Nfitz, yes. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

In view of your use of the talk page to continue abusive tirades. Neutrality^talk 16:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Augustus Sinclair.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Augustus Sinclair.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sinclairconceptresize.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sinclairconceptresize.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)