User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2023/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keimzelle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Keimzelle. Thank you for your work on Paul Chevré. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thank you for creating this article on a French-Belgian sculptor who created many public artworks and monuments in Canada.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: - wow, it's the first time I ever get such a nice message. I found Paul Chevré because he was a red link on Titanic.--Keimzelle (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are welcome! It's a nice article and I was completely unaware of his work, saw it on new page patrol. He made many great monumental sculptures, and it is fascinating he is a Titanic survivor. Cheers! Netherzone (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
A [redacted] vandal [redacted] wants to state his opinion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Andres English-Howard. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Not a pissing contest, I tagged it in the hopes you might improve the sourcing to show that they actually were notable. You chose to ignore that advice. I was unable to find any coverage of this person which would pass the PERP or BIO1E issues, so I sent it to AfD, since you made it quite obvious you were not willing to work on the article.Onel5969 TT me 20:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Andres English-Howard. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.Onel5969 TT me 20:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- I do not tolerate any pissing on my work, which was your clear intention. Your request for deletion contained even a factually wrong reason. How to discuss a deletion when you even haven't read the article? Nope. There's no way.--Keimzelle (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)- This is completely unacceptable. It isn't the first time you've been blocked for this, either. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
1
Keimzelle/Archives/2023 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- I'm not tolerating this bullcrap behavior by known trolls ever. This is a case of a problematic user who "patrols" pages and pisses on my research work. I did not write this article for the joy of getting asinine "notability" notices, and when Onel59.. doesn't budge, he wants to have my article deleted.
- The deletion reason given was "zero notability outside of murder", which is simply wrong. But apparently, people who are not able to read an article can put up anything up for deletion.
- I have notified the admins of this vandalism, and they did not take action against it, but against me. The rule of law is just a giant joke even on the English Wikipedia.
- During the past few weeks I've written numerous articles, and I received thanks only for one of them. But yet I get harassed for the one I've spent the most time researching for.
The behavior by Onel59.. cannot stand, and cannot be justified by any sane person. "Seek consensus" when editing articles, my ass.
In comparison to many other "contributors", I do not contribute deletion requests. I certainly do not piss on other people's work.
Now, let's see if anybody of you has grown a spine. Or a bit of conscience.
Decline reason:
Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
2
Keimzelle/Archives/2023 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How is pissing on my Wikipedia contributions not harassment? How is RfD'ing a clearly notable topic not vandalism? As a Wikipedia contributor I am duty-bound to write factually correct content, and this talk page is not an exception to that rule.
But anyway, Onel95.. and his friends like bludgeoning valuable contributors into submission.
I hereby order any admin to unblock me. Wikipedia has either rules that apply to everybody, or it has rules that nobody has to follow. Good night, and good luck. Keimzelle (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
3
Keimzelle/Archives/2023 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am stating the facts as precisely and concisely as possible:
- Forcing me respond to a RfD gives gives my legitimization to said RfD request, even if it is completely unfounded (see later comment on this).
- Onel5969 could have asked me to improve this article, instead of judging my article. I do not condemn other people's work, I try to build on it.
- Every contributor is allowed to remove clear vandalism on his own, without any admin's inputs.
- Onel5969's later deletion request shows that he did not actually read the article: "zero notability outside of murder", which proves his intent to disrupt my work. My article passes the notability guidelines without a doubt.
- Given the previous history, I have strong reasons to assume that most admins do not listen to factual reasons.
- Quite a time ago, a friend pointed me to the deletion request regarding the German article de:Kasia Lenhardt. She was the partner of a professional German footballer. She committed suicide after boulevard media hinted that she was to blame for the failing relationship. A Wikipedia contributor who - according to his user page - was a medical doctor supported the deletion request, said that "People might commit suicide to get their own Wikipedia article."
- Such a comment is a crass violation of several Wikipedia guidelines. I notified admins of this, none of which took action against this user. I then used the Wikipedia's processes to have those inactive admins sanctioned. My requests were turned down.
- Fighting against admins that flout the Wikipedia's own guidelines, I soon received bans for opening requests, e.g. on arbitration pages. Heck, I even received a one-week ban for opening a request in an area that was explicitly open to me.
- Wikipedia means following rules, I heard and read. Yet there is no rule that prevents a user from being banned when an important action (e.g. the deletion of an article) is still pending, violating any notion of due process.
Long story short, I have every reason to assume that hateful, trolling or vandalizing behavior does not get punished if the user in question has good connections to administrators. I have found that admins rather ban users - even very productive ones - if doing so prevents time-consuming arbitration effort between two users.
Such is the previous story. So low is my trust in any admins. Well-connected users always have the protection of admins, however disruptive their behavior is. Therefore I cannot trust that requests for deletion are processed in a fair way, especially if a "respected user" like Onel5969 initiates them.
I have been volunteering in many areas for more than a decade, mostly in assisting handicapped persons. The single most important thing I learned there is to never destroy somebody's efforts that were paid for by her or his valuable time. You step up to help them doing better work if you're not happy with it. There is no other way.
As my honest intention was to revert a clear case of vandalism, I stand by my assertion that Onel5969 is a vandal. For the "troll" and "even worse creature", I beg your and Onel5969's forgiveness.
I request my immediate unblocking.
Decline reason:
You are trying to justify your poor behavior, not tell us why it was disruptive- unfortunate coming from a longtime user. Furthermore, you double down on your attacks and openly stand by them. I am declining your request. You are close to losing talk page access. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
4
Keimzelle/Archives/2023 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As per your request, I have to tell why my behavior was "disruptive". As a longtime "user", I know very well what "disruption" is. Defending my article, and trying to make Onel5969 cease his harassing behavior by calling him various nice names, disrupted the established institutions and caste system that is prevalent on Wikipedia. Never shall a lowly user ever challenge the hallowed decision of an administrator, for he is always right. Never shall somebody defend one's own work against attacks, for it is accepted that certain "well respected" people are allowed to prey on "users". Having concisely explained how my behavior was disruptive, my full access to Wikipedia shall be restored now. And, of course, Onel5969 is not a vandal. For an administrator has demanded that I accept this fact. So... please? (I could go on on how the unblock procedures are fatally flawed. I could ask ChatGPT to write how sorry I am. Also, it spurs obedience, not collaboration or trust.) P.S.: I am widely grinning because Onel5969's deletion request has not garnered a single comment from any user in 24 hours. Maybe I was right all along. Maybe I was right to revert his "contributions".
Decline reason:
Tell me you don't and won't ever play well with others without telling me you don't and won't play well with others. We've had more than enough of this attitude; I think about the one thing we could all, even you, agree on at this point is that this unblock process has not only gone nowhere pretty fast, it's not particularly interested in going anywhere ever again. So, after I'm done saving this, I will be revoking your talk page access. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
(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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
is closed as it was neither concise nor clear. Nor did it address the three questions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's to slow down the disruption from multiple non productive requests. Please consider the advice you have been given and wait for UTRS to reset. I do not engage in sub rosa unblock discussions via email. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Should reset in about 48 hours -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)