User talk:Hexrei

Welcome!

Hello, Hexrei, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Join d club

Please remember, whenever you leave someone a message, do so on their talk page, not their userpage. I have moved your message to User:Join d club to his talk page as it should be. Thank you! — Moe ε 19:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to John Scalzi, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hex did it because he doesn't like me. He's darling that way. No doubt he thought he was making a point. Scalzi

Please -- this is serious stuff. Hexrei, may I point you at WP:NCR? -- Metahacker 21:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I promise never to climb that building again :( but im keeping the spiderman costume, the girlfriend loves it.Hexrei 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I wasn't being serious? He was being a dick to me over at my personal site, and then he came over and did this here. The two are related events. I certainly agree that putting false information into Wikipedia is serious stuff; he did so knowingly and with intent. Scalzi

Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Being a dick? You're the fucking master, dude. Don't cry to me you pathetic hack.Hexrei 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one posting outright lies to WIkipedia, Hexrei. Scalzi

Shouldn't you be busy scouring your website comments of any posts critical of you, like you deleted mine just now? Go back to doing what you do best, promoting John Scalzi.Hexrei 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through the Web site, you'll find lots of posts that are critical of me, Hexrei. However, that doesn't mean I have to tolerate someone like you, who is merely trolling. You clearly have not read my site's comment thread rules. Scalzi

I'd love to see them. Apparently one of them must be NO SAYING BAD STUFF ABOUT SCALZI OK cause all I did was point out the truth. Keep working that career. If you can't be a great writer at least you can have a personal website that aggrandizes you!Hexrei 03:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see them, they're linked to off the front page of the site. The reason for banning that would apply for you is the one where I say I retain the right to delete comments that I find "too obnoxious for mere words." Also, defacing Wikipedia with information you knew was false in order to make a dubious point didn't count in your favor, either. I may have problems with how one person chose to implement Wikipedia's guidelines, but I don't intentionally and purposefully degrade the site's usefulness, as you did. Honestly, now. What do you think Quatloo would think about what you did? Scalzi

Mr. Scalzi, please take this argument off-wiki, if it needs to continue at all. Thanks... Videmus Omnia 03:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it doesn't need to continue, actually.Scalzi

"I retain the right to delete comments that I find "too obnoxious for mere words."" Translation: "Any argument Scalzi can't win". You're pathetic. Keep on censoring anybody you can't debate with, buddy. C ya.Hexrei 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:John Scalzi, you will be blocked from editing. Videmus Omnia 03:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more personal attacks. Videmus Omnia 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I agree with Scalzi about the whole edit war over Saberhagen's death being a case of Wikipedia idiocy. That said, the relevant edit to John Scalzi was funny. Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee at the time. Life is too short to take Wikipedia seriously. Samboy 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, glad someone appreciates the joke :) thanks. Hexrei 23:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you for 24 hours for harassment and attempted outing of a fellow editor. If you persist in doing so, you will be blocked indefinitely. Crum375 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block is entirely inappropriate, I will ask User:Crum375 to unblock you. linas 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked, but it is clear that discussing this topic on SlimVirgin's talk page is bad form, and impolite, so please do not do so. Andre (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put that in a stronger form than Andrevan. Posting what may be another editor's real name anywhere on Wikipedia (not just on the editor's talk page) when that editor has not voluntarily provided the information, is a great deal more than bad form and impolite. It is harassment and is completely forbidden by our policy, regardless of whether the information is correct or not. Ending your message with "kisses" when asking a question that anyone with the smallest amount of common sense would know would be unwelcome is taunting. Reposting your edit after it has been removed by an administrator is trolling. Since Andrevan did not make this clear to you, let me do so: you will be blocked indefinitely if you do this again. You may like to spend some time reading this and this. ElinorD (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor is right, I went a little too easy on you. Andre (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked you, as you've made it clear you don't intend to abide by our policies. I note that you also have a history of vandalism and BLP problems. ElinorD (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

ElinorD blocked me for personal reasons. If the two (yes, TWO is a history now) cases of "vandalism" were worthy of a block, why did she not institute it until her feelings got all hurt? When did this become an editor's personal argument-stifling tool?

Decline reason:

I think your trolling is too obvious to comment on. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For the record, my feelings are not at all "hurt". I did not see the vandalism at the time, or the BLP problems, until you started to harass another user, after which I looked through your edits, to decide how long to block for. While I was looking, another user blocked you for 24 hours, which I personally felt was too short, but I didn't interfere. Another admin, without examining the situation sufficiently (as he later admitted on your page, on mine, and on MONGO's), unblocked. Some of the discussion can be seen here. In case the block log is unclear, "taunting" refers not to Hexrei's post-block message to me, who warned him ("Do you think I actually care what you have to say? Go play out your powertrip on someone else.") nor to his message to Andrevan, who acknowledge after unblocking that he had been too easy ("Are you kidding? Take your threats and shove em.") It refers to the closing of a harassing message in which he posted what he believes to be an anonymous administrator's personal details (twice) with "Kisses". I'd also like to point out that he sent an obscene email to the admin who blocked him, and he posted on this issue elsewhere, showing himself to be completely uncontrite. ElinorD (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What obscene email? I don't even know how to get an admin's email address, if that's possible. I sure as hell didn't email any of the WP admins. Have you considered that I'm not the only person that has issues with WP admins?And yes Andre did unblock me, and I haven't done anything blockworthy since then. You're just butt-hurt cause I told you I didn't want to listen to you.Hexrei 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the post-block messages you sent to me and to Andrevan, though obnoxious, are not messages that I would normally block someone for. The point is that deliberate harassment by posting what you believe to be someone's personal details (and in your case, by reposting it after an admin had removed it, and by taunting the person by putting "Kisses" at the end of what you must have known would be an unwelcome message) is a blockable offence, and people who do this are blocked to protect the project. The block should have been indefinite, and should have only been lifted (if at all) on your acknowledgment that what you did was wrong, and your assurances that you would not under any circumstances continue to do so. You were wrongly unblocked, without having given any such assurances. You then told the admin who unblocked you but admitted error to "shove em", and asked me if I thought you cared what I said. I took those two messages as meaning that you don't accept that what you did was wrong, and you don't intend to respect our policies (which your previous vandalism and BLP violations showed you to have little respect for in any case). I therefore reinstated what should have been an indefinite block all along. ElinorD (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalisms were wrong, I don't feel that what I said to you or Andre was wrong. You reblocked me over speech that by your own admission wasn't worthy of a block. This project isn't about protecting your feelings, is it? Also, I'm curious about this email accusation. Got a verifiable source, or was that just WikiLibel? At least CnP us the text for lulz.Hexrei 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely stand by ElinorD's actions. By acting as you have you have squandered the good faith I normally extend to even troublesome contributors. Andre (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]