User talk:You all love me

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You all love me, saying "check the birth records" is not a valid edit summary if you want such a change as in Molly Smitten-Downes to stand. It's not vandalism, I agree, but it's also not based on reliable sources. And please mind your tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Maria Theresa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Knock it off. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redlining your aggression meter

Could you dial things back some? Yes, you should not have been called a vandal, but you're reacting pretty far over the top. I've reverted a couple of your edits, because one one case, it caused formatting errors, and in another, it appears to disagree with published sources. If you've got a source for the birthdate change, please bring it up on the article talk page. If you don't know about it already, you should look over our policies on edit warring. Further edit warring, and further calling people "pricks", etc., are probably going to end up in a block of this account, and nobody wants that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to add sources

Reading Help:Referencing for beginners might help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Molly Smitten-Downes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Chillum 05:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Molly Smitten-Downes. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, don't react to stupidity by calling someone stupid. I get it. You sir, are completely unstupid for repeating obvious lies. You all love me (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down or you will be be blocked again. Focus on content, not name-calling --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I AM TOTALLY CLAM!!!

I need to undo this edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Molly_Smitten-Downes&diff=631749441&oldid=631749247 which is factually incorrect.

I notice that at talk:Molly Smitten-Downes, Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) is name calling me and not focusing on content. He is inserting content that is incorrect having been told why tihs information is incorrect. I will be proven right because I am right. You all love me (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of name-calling from my part. I provided sources in response to Floquenbeam. You proceeded to use CAPS which is seen as uncivil shouting in written format, followed by calling me a "complete tool". I said "Oy calm down" in response to that, and made an observational comment, not a name-calling remark. You then told me to "fuck off" via my talk page, called me a "prick" and to "shut the fuck up" You also called another user a "prick" whilst also calling me a "prick" again. We're here to be nice to people, not attack with with abuse like you have done, and clearly intended to carry on doing. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too short for editors to have to deal with this kind of pointless silly aggression

I've blocked you indefinitely. If you can convince an admin that you'll start acting more collaboratively, then follow the instructions in the tmaplate below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Floquenbeam (talk · contribs). Have YOU looked at the evidence at http://www.findmypast.co.uk or are you going to be an uncooperative prick like Wes mouse (talk · contribs) too? You all love me (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be an uncooperative prick. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, brilliant. This is the depths to which we plunge. Instead of dealing with untrue fact, we just repeat it even though we can prove it's a lie, and block a person trying reasonably to deal with this untrue fact and the legions of moronic imbeciles who repeat it. You all love me (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I think revoking talk page rights would be appropriate too, clearly there are no signs to the end of name-calling and abuse towards other editors and reliable sources. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse: I only abuse idiots who really need to relisee how fuking stuipd they are being. You all love me (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK I'll correct the spelling of my name, seeing as it is such difficulty for one to spell properly. And if you abuse idiots who are stupid, then you may wish to cease self-harming and seek professional help. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ funny how NeilN manages to follow simple instructions and therefore isn't quite as bad as the rest of you isn't it? You all love me (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for pointless aggression with no end in sight. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2014 (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).

You all love me (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need to undo this edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Molly_Smitten-Downes&diff=631749441&oldid=631749247 which is factually incorrect.

Decline reason:

The block is in place to prevent you from making edits to places like that; using the unblock template to tell us how much you really want to make them anyway is sort of a non-starter. If you want to edit, you'll need to be unblocked, and if you want to be unblocked, you'll have to convincingly explain here how your behavior is going to change if we unblock you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2014 (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.

But @Fluffernutter: so if something is wrong and I can't point out it's wrong because some idiots think it's right even though I've told them how to realise it's wrong. How is that logical? Why should someone change their behaviour and not the people who are doing wrong? You all love me (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct the template again huh!? And you're basically requesting to be unblocked so that you can make an edit which in turn means you plan to start edit warring - something which you were blocked for not long ago. Yeah, very wise move for someone who self-proclaims not to be an idiot. And you were blocked for abusing other editors and telling them to "fuck off" on a variety of talk pages. Demonstrate civility would be the logical step forward. But as you cannot demonstrate that by the continued personal attacks to other editors, then I cannot see any admin going to unblock you. And I wouldn't be surprised if you end up losing talk page rights by the fact you're still attacking people. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off prik - I'm not the one edit warring. edit warring is inserting false information. You've been REPEATEDLY told why this is false and YOU REFUSE to look at the evidence ojbectively. You are the one who will be baned shortly because of yur beahviour. You all love me (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use {{ }} to enclose user names, use [[ ]]. Using the former copies the contents of the editor's user page here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Nick (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]