User talk:Ktf87

Hello, Ktf87, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Infinity

Your recent editing history at Infinity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D.Lazard (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I received no valid reason for the deletion except that the post is "nonsensical" This is a very offensive move, and I categorically disagree and denounce this act. Editors who disagree with any post need to explain why disagree. Only saying that it is "nonsense" is limited and fruitless. It is also antithetical to knowledge expansion and interdisciplinary intellectualism on Wikipedia. The editors who use words such as "nonsense" just because they do not understand the post are limiting access and also exemplify a limited and condescending sense of superiority. It's unfair. Ktf87 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be engaging in advocacy, which is counterproductive to Wikipedia's goals. Your recent editions read like you decided that not enough articles were talking about topics that are important to you, so you decided to add that material to articles that are tenuously related to those topics. That isn't helping Wikipedia, and responding to challenges of these additions by calling people stupid and racist... really isn't helping. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advocacy. I am no interested in defending any argument I post; I am only interested in showing all sides of the story, whether I agree with them or not. That's how I understand knowledge. Whether or not topics matter to me is not relevant at all; they are worth pieces of information directly related to the concept of infinity (just like there is a section of games and arts and popular culture). This is an example that completes the picture and enriches the page. Assuming otherwise is wrong and simply inaccurate. Objectivity is what will make this page grow, which means any topic of relevance should be presented, whether we agree with it or not. Comments like BS and salad and whatnot are degrading, and they definitely warrant a response.

I would suggest that someone who is still struggling to figure out how to use Wikipedia is in a poor position to pontificate to others about how Wikipedia works. If you add material to an article, and another editor takes it out, the next thing to do is not to just add it again. The next thing to do is to start a discussion on the Talk page instead. Immediately putting the material back, is edit-warring, and I've just linked that term again for you, asking that this time you read the policy (with the hope that you will start following it). P.S. Being disingenuous about your motives won't get you very far around here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much take your point on the re-edit but that is not the issue I am taking here. Even after I posted a discussion, I got degrading messages about the post being BS. Please stop making this about a technicality. It is not. I followed the rules as soon as I was made awqre of them. I opened a discussion post and asked a very clear and open and polite question. Then I get degrading responses with direspectul terms, which started the whole thing. This is where the problem is, and not in the "technicality". I will not engage anymore. Your responses very much prove that you will not tackle the core issue and that you even refuse to see that the other editors have been very disrespectful from the very beginning.

Please feel free to comment or not, I will not engage any further. I am just glad that this whole back-and-forth actually proves how valid and necessary my posts are. Thank you for making the case. Peace out.

Links to the rules were posted right here on your Talk page after your first edits, and no: you did not subsequently follow them. I see no evidence that you even read them. While other editors could have – and should have – been more respectful in describing the things you added... I'll be honest: those edits really were not nearly as useful as you imagine them to be. You'll probably also dismiss me as stupid for not understanding them, but by most people's standards I'm actually pretty damn smart, and I found parts of them an incoherent salad of jargon and PhD-speak. That's a common flaw of academic and para-academic writing: it's so wrapped up in its self-congratulating, obfuscatory preciousness that it fails to communicate, and the fault then is not in the reader but the writer. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Infinity (philosophy). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, calling someone a racist who happens to disagree with you is against Wikipedia policy and counterproductive anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not breath further violence into your racist and limited comments. BS and postmodern salad? Really? Her argument is beyond you, so I understand the inferiority complex. Your community is a lost cause. Edit as you like. I am not engaging anymore. Ktf87 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Ktf87. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. If you continue to make accusations of racism, I will escalate the issue and seek sanctions against you. Please take some time and read through the various links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page to learn more about how Wikipedia operates. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section in question is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ktf87 and personal attacks –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]