Protector of Wiki

Hello and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia. I had to undo your edit to Gettysburg Address because it made several terms more difficult. On the Simple English Wikipedia, we try to use as simple words as possible, using words from Basic English where possible. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions, or feel free to ask at WP:Simple talk. Kansan (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Protector of Wiki, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

• Help
• Rules
• Links to useful pages
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy changing! :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Point of Simple English Wikipedia

Hello PoW; you enquired as to the point of this project. It's a fair question and certainly one that has been asked before. Basically we see our mission here as multi-fold. Firstly, we offer a safer place for a person with lower level English language skills. Here they can edit without being worried about not having the same skill as everyone else. Our established editors tend not to rush in with mass corrections and warnings on talk pages. When we encounter such a person we tend to give tips and hints and point new users to places where help can be found. Also, we get a lot of readers whose native language is not English. Simplification is not just about changing words into simpler words, but also going into a different method of explaining concepts and ideas. There are not only language students here, however, we also have children who read us and edit us. They can do so in a more relaxed and encouraging environment. They also lend their unique perspective on what makes a readable article. We have whole classes of students all over the world who edit us as class projects and for assignments. There is nothing wrong with the English Wikipedia, it does a fantastic job at providing for its audience. But, for some people, even native English speakers, some of the articles are hard to read and understand. We cater to those who wish an easier to read and understand article of the same subjects (mostly) that en has. We've been around since 2003, we've continued to grow, our readership continues to grow and we are one of the most active and successful of the small wikis. Stick around and you'll see! :) fr33kman 10:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Sorry if I made any spelling mistakes above. I'm dyslexic, another group we embrace. fr33kman 10:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are dyslexic?! You made no mistakes, so I wasn't able to deduce that! After reading what you wrote, I can tell you are very smart! Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it has taken a long time to become proficient. fr33kman 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Complexity

I would again ask you to stop making articles such as Gettysburg Address more complex. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize! I just normally write that way, so I cannot distinguish between complex and simple! Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed good articles/very good articles process

Thank you for your help in that area, Protector of Wiki. Here, GA/VGA promotion processes are more of a discussion than a vote, so "supports" and "opposes" are usually discouraged. :) I just thought I'd notify you in case you weren't aware of this. I hope you're enjoying your time here. By the way, you should probably make a user page (even a sentence), so that your name won't come up as a redlink in the New Changes. Kindly, —Clementina talk 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is having your username come up as a blue link important? πr² (talk • changes) 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A user is under no obligation to create a userpage. Kansan (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Kansan is right. I simply meant to suggest it to PoW. It's not essential, just encouraged. —Clementina talk 03:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If the blue link thing concerns you, you can just make your user page a redirect to your talk page, or to a user page on one of the other Wikimedia sites. Purplebackpack89 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand! Why is creating a userpage "encouraged"? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It helps us identify who you are, so that we don't mix you up with some new user or vandal. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you mistake me for a new user? My username is distinct! Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just chill. Create a userpage if you want one, or don't, it really doesn't matter. -- Lauryn (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lauryn, I don't see PoW getting upset here. fr33kman 23:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Aryans

Care to explain this? -- Lauryn (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the same! See English. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Then create a separate page; but the content that was there is already mentioned in the article I redirected it to. There's no need to get upset. -- Lauryn (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lauryn, where do you see PoW getting "upset"? AGF fr33kman 23:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I never was upset! God knows where she got that! Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is your very frequent use of exclamation marks that made her think so. I had the same impression, but I see you use them for nearly every sentence, except questions. EhJJ^TALK 23:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I use them judiciously, wherever I see fit! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Protector of Wiki, they are not the same thing. they can be similar but they have their differences and should be seperated and later we can add more to them. Strong.soldier23 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave a message

Hello, Protector of Wiki. I am just reminding you to leave a message when you undo vandalism. I have already left a message on 78.23.135.130's talk page, so you don't have to worry about it. Thank you.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me! I sometimes remember, but it always slips my mind! Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Protector of Wiki. You have new messages at Fr33kman's talk page.
Message added 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

πr² (talk • changes) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing warning from IP talk page

Why did you remove my warning?  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained on your profile. Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing deletion template

Please do not remove deletion templates. If you disagree with the deletion, use {{wait}} and place your reason on the article's talk page. Thank you.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the deletion template at Matrix theory (physics) because no reason was given. When the anonymous editor provided a rationale on the talk page, I copied it over! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Dear Protector of wiki, I just wanted to thank you for keeping wikipedia a better place. God Bless. regards Strong.soldier23 (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

God bless you too, Strong.soldier! You ought to be thanked as well, because you are also making Wikipedia a better place! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

collapse

Hi. Please don't collapse the discussion on Hoots, it has been closed and archived, that should be plenty. Thank you for your work, Jon@talk:~$ 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you Jon for your encouragement! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Simple talk#Hoot's reply

Please stop archiving the discussion. I explained as much in the edit summary. If you continue to do so, it may be considered disruptive. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of being "disruptive". Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanfen

Hey! Thanks for the ref on the article. However, you removed the headings I added. It takes a little time to translate the article from the French Wikipedia, so next time could you not remove them ;) Thank you, Yottie ^=talk= 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yottie! I never realised that you were in the process of translating the article! My apologies! Protector of Wiki (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's no problem at all ;) Hope you keep doing good work here. Regards, Yottie ^=talk= 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite?

Hi Protector of Wiki! I saw your wikibreak and guessed that you've taken one because of my cold sis. :P Please come back, you are always welcomed by me (even though it probably doesn't mean anything to you ;))! You're a greatly treasured editor. There are lots of mean people in the wiki - no offense to anybody at all!!! - and Clem's remark is nothing compared to them. :) Well, if you want to really change somebody else's userpage, edit mine! I don't mind any edits, from a small edit or a big picture of icky slime put up on my userpage. :P As long as you don't edit abusively, please feel free to edit as much as you feel like. And remember, there is always somebody here to hug you and welcome you if you need one! Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

By "indefinite", I meant that the time I return is uncertain. Thank you, Belle, for being so nice! By far, you are the warmest person on this wiki!! I am sure that God sent you here to comfort me! I will edit your userpage! Kindly, Protector of Wiki (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thanks for the edit! My userpage looks marvelous thanks to your edits. :D Your skills in decorating are very talented. Why don't you make your own userpage, too? It seems such a pity for all your great talents to be wasted on me. :) Thank you once again! If you find anything else that needs fixing, go ahead. Yours warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I made the picture of Jesus a little bit smaller so it could fit in with the pie next to it. :) I do hope you don't mind? If you do, I'll revert my edits immediately. Thanks, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Belle, don't thank me! I should be thanking you for restoring my faith in the time I was down! Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

I noticed the message you recently left to User talk:DARTH SIDIOUS 2. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. EhJJ^TALK 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that one should not remove valid interwiki links unless one has a valid reason for doing so! I am not biting that user; biting applies to newcomers who are not well versed with Wikipedia's rules! This user has been editing Wikipedia before I even became a member of this God-inspired community! That he knows how to install Huggle and use it within minutes of activation — something which I myself do not know how to do — demonstrates that he is an experienced editor! Please do not leave me condescending "warning" messages in the future!! Treating me as a vandal and giving me the disgusting image is something for which I will not stand!! Further messages of this ilk from you will be removed from my talk page!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Angry German Kid (Der Echte Gangster)

I'm not going to break 3RR for something like this. It's a test page. It was not made to attack him at all, the IP made the page in good faith. Please try to realize that. He's not attacking anyone, he just made the article with a POV. I doubt he created the page with intent to attack. Simon^KSK 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SimonKSK, you are making a serious judgmental error by repeatedly replacing the attack tag with a test page tag! The page was clearly meant to disparage and defame the subject. The article says: "... is a sick kid of age 15 from Bergisches Land, Germany. He is the Der echte Gangster, a wannabe gangster. He stopped producing videos for almost a year in 2006 because of his reputation in the 'Angry German Kid' video, which he had responded with this message: “ I am not sick or mad! I only get abit p*$$£d off. I am a very normal boy!!!!!!!!!!!

This is clearly an attack on the subject and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending it as a test page! If an article like this were written about you, would you believe it was a test page or an attack page?! I have restored the attack page tag because administrators will hopefully delete it more quickly than if the test page tag were on the article! WP:BLP is applicable here, so 3RR does not apply to my actions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The page is gone. The reason's don't matter. By the way, you shouldn't have blanked the entire page, only the offending material Purplebackpack89 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The reasons do matter! If someone asks for the article to be undeleted, administrators will be more willing to undelete and userfy a test page than an attack page! I blanked the entire page because the entire thing was an attack page! Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Protector, please. Purplebackpack89 18:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you are willing to step away from this fray! I will as well, once SimonKSK understands my causes for concerns. Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I should be ashamed of myself? >_> Why should I be ashamed if the page gets deleted anyway? While the IP does call him sick and a wannabe gangster, the page's purpose is not to attack the target. BLP states that an attack page should be QD IF the article's only purpose is to attack. That is NOT the article's only purpose. It's purpose is to inform, but it doesn't not adhere to NPOV. That is the problem. That's why it's more likely to be a test page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKSK (talk • contribs)

The page's purpose is a thinly-veiled attack on the subject! It was obvious to me, but it seems that you have some problems with grasping that unsourced negative content about a living person violates WP:BLP!

Wikipedia:DP#G10 says, "Attack pages: Pages that were only created to insult a person or thing (such as "John Q. Doe is dumb"). This includes articles on a living person that only insult and have no sources, and where there is no NPOV version in the edit history to revert to." Because the page was created to insult the living person, and because the article only insults and has no sources, and because there is no NPOV content to revert to, WP:DP#10 is clearly applicable and thus the attack page tag is preferable over the non-applicable test page tag! Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Say, has anybody bothered to warn the user or report him to AIV or AN? Just sayin' Purplebackpack89 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you bring this up, feel free to do this yourself! Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, but as the article's been deleted, I can't. I've asked the admin who deleted it to look into it Purplebackpack89 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please refrain from making statements that can be perceived as personal attacks such as this. Remember that all wiki users are volunteers, and that keeping things cordial and polite helps the community. Kansan (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the personal attack! Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you do not agree with what somebody believes, that's fine. You do not need to use such strong words or phrases or direct them at users. How would you like it if somebody said that about a statement that you made, or, for example, if I responded to something that you argued on a talk page by dismissing what you took the time like that? Kansan (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see the personal attack!! I don't mind if someone uses strong words or phrases at me, and I hope you don't too! Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but just because you don't mind someone swearing doesn't mean that someone else won't. I, personally, don't give a shit if someone swears at me or calls me a fuckhead, or something like that, because I don't view it as a personal attack, just a pathetic way to upset me. But, that doesn't mean I should call everyone a fuckhead, now does it? Simon^KSK 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between calling a person's arguments "bullshit" and calling someone a "fuckhead". Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not as big as you might think. I can apply the same thing I said before here too. If I was an admin, and I blocked an disruptive user, and he requests to be unblocked, and calls my arguments for blocking him bullshit, obviously I'm going to ignore it and not take offense to it. But, that does not mean I can call everyone's thoughts "bullshit" and not think that I'm personally attacking them. Simon^KSK 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you feel it is a personal attack, as per the community guidelines and WP:Civility, that statement falls outside the boundaries of acceptable discourse, so consider this a warning. Kansan (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take your sanctimonious attitude elsewhere. You have violated WP:Civility yourself by threatening to block me. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is he threatening to block you? Simon^KSK 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"consider this a warning" Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

<-If you continue to harbor this aggressive attitude against good-faith volunteers of this wiki, you will be blocked. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What I said to Kansan applies to you!! I don't respect any of your opinions except that of Fr33kman whom I dearly respect for explaining the mission of this wiki. If he tells me to tone it down, I will!! Otherwise, I won't! Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now on a mandatory 24 hour time out. Go calm down. I understand that you're probably under a lot of stress, so stepping away from the wiki is good. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This prevents me from defending the article I created. You have prevented me from responding to your arguments at the RfD. That is quite unfair. I promise that I will not cuss and use words like "bullshit" if you unblock me. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Protector_of_Wiki (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

Above!! :( I want to participate at that RfD!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please wait out the 24 hours. The point was not just that you were using offensive language; it was your general attitude which does not seem to have changed. It is not as if the AfD closes before your block expires, so you will have the chance to respond to whatever points have been made- hopefully with 24 hours to think about it, you will be able to think about what you mean and phrase it in a way that does not attack or offend other editors. Thanks. sonia♫ 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The circumstances in which I edit can lead to me being absent for long periods of time without notice! :( I could be called away right now!! This block could spell the death of the article I created because I wasn't able to defend it in the crucial first 24 hours of the RfD!! :( :( :( Please reconsider this decline! Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that you're only blocked for a day. The AfD will close in a week. I'm pretty sure you can live for 24 hours without editing. Just cool down, and play some video games/read a book/play your guitar. Simon^KSK 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't play video games!! And the circumstances in which I edit can lead to me being absent for long periods of time without notice! :( This block could spell the death of the article I created because I wasn't able to defend it in the crucial first 24 hours of the RfD!! :( :( :( Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems as if no one is active, I will be logging off! :( I ask that Fr33kman provide his opinion about this block and unblock me if he sees fit!! I respect his opinion greatly and agree to his statements and actions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's good that you respect Fr33kman- so do I. But ignoring everyone else is not the way to contribute constructively. We are all contributors here who are trying to improve the encyclopedia; at times we may disagree with each other and in these cases someone has to accede to the majority view in order to keep the peace. Otherwise, this place would not survive. Also, it is hard to gather intentions from text. The way you write, peppered with exclamation marks, gives the impression that you are somewhat agitated most of the time. It may be partly why others have seen your comments as unconstructive- they are provocative because of their tone. The more important thing for you to consider is that when you state things in this way it is hard for others to see your point, however good it may be. You have a better chance of convincing others if you state things in a neutral way. Fr33kman may or may not weigh in on this block, but please understand there is a reason behind it and it wasn't entirely spurious. Sincerely, sonia♫ 23:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled as to why you can call me "agitated" (tantamount to if not greater in egregiousness than calling someone's argument "bullshit"). That hurt my feelings very much :(, which is why I stayed away from Simple until now! Are you exempt from WP:NPA and WP:Civility? Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone "agitated" is in no way, a personal attack. Maybe you yourself should read WP:NPA. Simon^KSK 23:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone's argument "bullshit" is in no way a personal attack. (I note that I will not use "bullshit" again because I am fearful of another block!) "Agitated" is a personal attack, commenting on my character. It was hurtful and soiled my dignity!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be very agitated as of late. Maybe you should take a break? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Does "take a break" mean you plan to block me again?! :( Please don't!! :( :( :(
How is calling me "agitated" not a personal attack?! Are you trying to mock me by using it again when I said I clearly felt hurt when Sonia called me it?! :( Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I was implying that you should take a wikibreak. You're taking the wiki way too seriously (as evidenced by the many exclamation marks). Agitated is a state of being, not much to do with your character, and you appear to be agitated. I'm not attacking or being uncivil to you. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Agitated" means "disturbed", so you were calling me disturbed! :( That is attacking my character! :( I used "bullshit" in the RfD and someone called it a personal attack. I was not personally attacking someone's character as you did when you called me "agitated"! I was merely calling a person's argument completely lacking common sense! Please explain what I am missing here!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Dear Protector of Wiki, "bullshit" is a swearword and is seen by very many as incivility, and may even be justly called a personal attack. Meanwhile, "agitated" isn't incivil or a personal attack at all—in fact, I think Sonia was simply concerned for you. I'm often agitated or upset myself in real life, and I think all humans become agitated at some time or another. Remember, dear Protector, this is just a website. :) We can make it a pleasant and happy experience for each other, and enjoy ourselves in making a free encyclopedia. Let's try to keep that goal in mind and move on. Okay? Kindly, —Clementina talk 03:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I repeat that "bullshit" can be considered in no way a personal attack. Though I thoroughly disagree with you, I am willing to let this go. Thank you, Clementina, for pointing me back in the direction for which Simple's mission calls and what Jesus would want us to do! Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hrs

Thank you very much for saying you respect my opinion and will abide by my actions. However, I have blocked you for an additional 24 hrs for admin shopping. Your block/unblock was dealt with by a total of three admins. Their opinion is just as valid as mine is and the community has shown that they trust our admins because they elected them. This culture that has come up lately of people not liking what one admin has said and so asking for another has got to stop! fr33kman 00:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

May I place replies to comments at the RfD and someone copy them over? I was blocked for being rude on a different RfD, not this one! Also, I am unsure that I will have time to comment tomorrow when my block expires! Thank you!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it can wait. It's only another a day. If you continue to make such requests, your right to edit this page will be removed. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for being rude and aggressive at more than just that one RFD. The block was about your behavior in general, not just about your actions at one RFD. Please realize this for your future editing when your block expires in about 22 hours. Either way (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stay cooler; hot-headed people get blocked much more easily. Just state your comments clearly without hype. See this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot that I had the flood flag. Simon^KSK 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFD Flight 1052 incident

What is actually your main goal for keeping the article? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the article!! Why shouldn't I want to keep it?? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling when I got the first tag that my edit to en:Hydrazoic acid was reverted. I felt very insulted, but then I realized after I cleared up that my revision didn't really improve the article. Do you hear anything else about it (Flight 1052) in the news anymore? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You never edited that hydrazoic acid article. "I realized after I cleared up that my revision didn't really improve the article" Are you saying that my article doesn't improve the encyclopedia??
There are still plenty of articles online and news reports about Flight 1052. Regardless, notability is not temporary. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

personal attacks

Your continued personal attacks against users that disagree with you is unacceptable, and I have blocked you for 48 hours. I have half a mind to increase your block time, but I'm hoping that this is because of the RFD, and not a trend of continuing behavior. Mind you, if this trend does continue, you will find yourself blocked for increasing (or even an indefinite) period(s) of time. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Griffinofwales, just because you disagree with me doesn't me that you should block me. Great, now you've blocked me for 48 hours so I cannot participate in the RfD if there are any last minute comments. The fact that unwelcome truths I have once again articulated have merited me another threat comes as no great surprise. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Griffinofwales, no personal attacks were made here. I suggest you read WP:NPA rather than being trigger-happy. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy abounds here. Sonia told me she was not exempt from WP:NPA and WP:Civility, but perhaps you are, since you are a senior mod? What is even more astounding is that your personal attacks occur on the same RfD that you purport my "personal attacks (sic)" to reside. Your racism sickens me. I am disgusted by your attitude about Germans. They have a rich culture, rich language, rich country.
You have also been quite rude, conducting another vote count when another user has requested that it cease and desist. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your history here is interesting as well. A mere year ago you were blocked for a 3RR violation at RfD. Sweet, exactly where you allege my "personal attacks (sic)" to occur. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Dear Protector, you can't seriously mean that? Griffinofwales was obviously joking... and your saying here that he is a racist and trigger-happy can certainly be seen as a personal attack, if not the comments at the RFD. —Clementina talk 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Clementina! :) I mean everything I say. The fact remains that Griffinofwales made a personal attack by denigrating Germans, a testament to the necessity for him to step down from the mod position.
I never called Griffinofwales a "racist". "[T]rigger-happy" describes exactly how he acted. He read my replies on the RfD, bypassing WP:NPA so he could quickly shut me down, as he voted to delete the article I created. Do you empathize with me? Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Protector, please stop attacking Griffinofwales. If your unkind comments continue, I will have to remove your talk page access as well, which I would be sorry to do. The talk page is supposed to be used to request for unblock, not to attack the blocking administrator. Okay? Sincerely, —Clementina talk 05:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Quote where I attacked Griffinofwales. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop aiding and abetting those who discriminate and smear the name of races they dislike. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Protector of wiki, I'm sure you know very well how you attacked Griffinofwales. He was just joking, everybody needs some laughter from time to time :). My dear friend, I'm quite disappointed in your unkind way you spoke to dear Griff, and how different it is from the way you had spoken to me at first. I can hardly believe that this is the skillful editor who added a great pic to my userpage! Just try to step back and cool yourself down until you're unblocked. :) Don't let me down, dear! Warmly and lovingly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Belle! :) I seek not to let you down, but unfortunately, my priority lies in publicizing Griffinofwales' racist nature, which will lead to filing a request to remove his mod status. I don't know how I attacked Griffinofwales — your sister has yet to provide quotes. I doubt I will be unblocked, since I have lost all faith in the wiki process. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Protector of Wiki, I am sorry to say that I have taken the liberty of removing your talk page access due to your continued unkind comments. This is just as much for your own sake as anyone else's, for you will do only harm to yourself by saying such things. Your comments that Griff has a "racist nature" and "smear the name of races they dislike" and is "trigger-happy" — what are these but personal attacks? I'm grieved I have to do this, but it's necessary. And I strongly advise you not to file a request for deadminship: I am certain it will be unsuccessful, could be seen as bad faith, and only hurt yourself. You can email the admins' list for a request for unblock if you wish. Kindest wishes, —Clementina talk 06:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Because of your incivility and rudeness, it does not seem like you have any intent of being a productive, collaborative user within this project. You are here on your own agenda. You are attacking everyone and anyone it seems. You have had issues with edit summaries attacking people; you presented civility issues at two different RFDs; you have presented civility issues on your talk page; you have presented civility issues when dealing with Did You Know. This has all happened in a little over a month of you being here. You fail to see the issues at all, thinking that your attitude and reactions are perfectly okay. Many users have tried to tell you that your attitude is not okay, but you do not accept and improve. Because of this, I do not feel that you can contribute productively to this project where users are required to interact civilly in order to accomplish common goals. I am sorry that it has come to this. Either way (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was removed because it was very uncivil. I, for one, do not consider myself a slimeball, peacefully contributing to various chemistry articles (I cannot say that to en.wikipedia.org though, where I got in debates about ID vs. evolution, although I did not attack people, just commented levelly on the content). You are just making inflammatory comments, which do not do any good. Since the community wanted your article deleted, you should have gave in and tried to recreate it several months later. There are many articles that can be made in this wiki, and you spent your time just adding comments to this page and your RfD page. Your excessive use of exclamation points could make it seem like a personal attack, too. For example, compare these two comments: "Your comment seems rude." vs. "You are acting very rude!!". The second one sounds like a personal attack, while the first one sound like a neutral observation.

These are some comments that will be helpful for anyone that has an impulse of being very dogmatic in their comments and to you, Protector of Wiki, in the case that you are reading this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)