User talk:KillerPlasmodium

Dereks1x?

Is that you? Italiavivi 01:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uh, who? I was an ip editor for several months and just recently got a user name. I have no idea what you are talking about.KillerPlasmodium 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated use of personal attacks and accusations that black churches are racist organizations leads me to suspect bad faith on your part. I have no desire whatsoever to feed you, please leave my User_talk page alone. Italiavivi 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I never said "black churches" are racist. They are racist if they have a racist doctorine or if they only allow black memebers. Obama's church has a racist doctorine, no two ways about it. Funny you want me to leave your talk page alone when you brazenly and rudely came into mine accusing/insinuating this nonsense.KillerPlasmodium 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. These policies apply to edit summaries as well as Talk pages and User talk pages. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not ever post again in my talk page.KillerPlasmodium 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please stop calling me a racist and referring to my Wikipedia contributions as racist. Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit vanalizing the Davis wiki and stop harassing me with this nonsense. Also, you are a funny one to point out civility to me as my first dealing with you saw you repeatedly call me a vandal despite the fact I had consensus in the talk page for the edits I was performing. Assume a little good faith, eh? Or how about actually accepting that you don not own wikipedia and that you opinion is not better than the consensus opinion? KillerPlasmodium 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR warning

Your edits to the article Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis have brought you to the point of violating WP:3RR any further reverts will result in a 24 hour block. Also I note that you edit summaries against good faith edits claim them to be vandalism is a personal attack and you may also be blocked for such comments. Gnan garra 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malik reverted me repeatedly in a previous wikipedia claiming that it was "vanadlism", despite I had complete consensus in the talk page to remove the material in question. Adiditionally, in this case the consensus in the talk page is a KEEP on the material of bobby cutts past violent record. Removal off the material is thus vandalism as I have proprely labeled it. Furhermore, I am not "one post from violating" the 3RR and I resent your attempts to bully me. KillerPlasmodium 04:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow. This is unreal. Indefinite block, huh?

This is outrageous. I don't even know where to start. Where is the oversight of rogue adminstrators in this enclypedia??? This is crazy. Wikipedia is a complete biased joke. You have to have dozens of admin friends backing you up and make you immune to the rules apparently. I have done little to deserve even the 24 horu block and then out of no where indefinite block??? Outrageous. I had heard a lot of bad things on the neck with corrupt moderation here but this is beyond the pale. I feel I have been mistreated and i present evidence of that mistreatment and then an admin gives me a "indefinite" block????KillerPlasmodium 09:04, 14 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't done anything to even be a blocked a ten minute block, let alone an indefinite block. I should get some kind of star for trying to actually improve this wikipedia in the face of numerous biased attacks by both users and admins. I'm actually speechless that this has occurred. This is the most biased and over the top admining I have seen in almost 20 years of being on the internet!!! If you are reviewing this, please do not make a knee-jerk response. I am serious that there has been terrible biased treatment and double standards at play here

Decline reason:

Per the discussion at ANI. Your attitude and behaviour is not appropriate for this encyclopedia, and the tone of your unblock request confirms it. (Also, the Internet has not yet been around for 20 years.) — Sandstein 16:24, 14 July 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.

What? The internet as been around in the United states for about THIRTY years now. What a joke. How do you expect someone to act when they are permanenlty banned from a site that has done nothing wrong?????????????? This ridiuclous. I'm hunting for emails of someone to take a look at this outrageous treatment. A wikipedia anyone can edit? You mean a wikipedia where a descrete group of people can edit in 90% of the rest of the editors have to jkowtow to them because they have amin friends that will ban you otherwise. This compete and total joke.KillerPlasmodium 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still civilized people on earth these days, such as I. I find it outrageous for the admins to block you for writing something that is well sourced. I have used this site for 4 years contributing information that most Americans believe in, and not capitulating to the radical left. Unfortunately, this site is a hotbed of radicalism. For example, miscegenation is opposed by 30+% of the American public, but that article only includes positive references, without regard to the proven loss of diversity, domestic violence, absentee parents, and loss of identity. I will try to urge the admins to unblock you since they are obviously the ones who are clouded. Thank you and God Bless. Gold Nitrate 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a bit of research tonight on the very "rouge admins" of which you speak. It is a very biased and unfair system. As an example, we have 18 year old college students passing judgement on 40 something adults with careers and families and behaving as if they are some kind of bad group of people. Then the term "trolls who deserve little respect" is applied to some Wikipedia members who are members of the armed forces, some of them deployed in Iraq. Meanwhile these very same admins are permitted to make blatant personal attack and sometimes even covert threats againsts people's jobs and families (example "I have some friends who know the internet pretty well and they could easily find you"). These same people then hide behind the No Personal Attacks and No Legal Threats if someone dares to challenge them and then, like yourself, gets an indef block because he made the wrong enemies. A sad, sad state of affairs. My best wishes to you. Start a new account or just go unlogged ip for awhile to get away from those who would do you harm. -38.119.112.189 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were wrong

Well, I see that you've been blocked like, literally forever.. But assuming that you check your page I'd like you to check out our responses to your concerns on the Population history of AE page and I hope that they end your confusion, as what you were saying was out of the ordinary for most scholarly researchers..

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Population_history_of_ancient_Egypt#Keita_and_Diop.2C_am_I_in_the_wrong_wiki.3F - Taharqa

An indefinite block isn't necessarily a permanent block. Rather an indefinate block has no set time period. The person could be unblocked in the future if they are able to convince admins that they are reformed and will not repeat their behaviour. Nil Einne 08:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no wrongdoing on KillerPlasmodium's part. The admins are the ones who should review this again and unblock him. Gold Nitrate 04:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]