User talk:Sir kris

Warnings

Wiki Etiquette

The people who run this site obviously don't understand wiki etiquette, such as removing edits to one's own talk page because they're critical of the owners. That's why I no longer visit this crummy site. I just received an email notification of a comment to this old page and decided to comment on it myself. Then someone undid the changes that I made to MY user talk page without my consent, without making any effort to contact me, etc. This is not an article, this is a user's personal talk page. If you want to delete my account, that's your business, but please don't vandalize my talk page or undo my changes without my consent.

I suggest you read-up on wiki etiquette at www.wikipedia.org. Making false accusations about proxy IP's is questionable already, but vandalizing someone's personal user talk page for no other reason but to censor critical comments is just plain bad form. Either delete my account altogether or leave my talk page alone. If you want to post *constructive* discussion, that's fine, but you do not have my permission to remove content from here. If you want it removed, delete the account, otherwise I will revert any further attempts at vandalism of my talk page.

heh heh, its good to know im not the only one editing from china :D

Yes the admin of this particular wiki doesn't seem to comprehend that there are people on the internet who live outside the United States. Mr. Rat just doesn't understand how a wiki is supposed to work, hence why I stopped coming here a long time ago.

Fake "Warning" #1

The following "warning" is just a false accusation the inexperienced admin made based on circumstantial assumptions. I never used any proxy IP's; whether or not the user who did comment was using a proxy is beyond me. This site is obviously not newbie-friendly, hence why I stopped using it once this fake warning was posted to my talk page. Over a year later, someone posted a comment and another ranking user tried to suppress it by vandalizing my talk page without my consent. I have since reverted this vandalism. If you wish to view the false accusation, it's stored on my archive page.

<protect>

Warning

Last "unofficial" warning. Please stop naming editors vandals, as it violates our Etiquette. Furthermore, please add a link on your talk page to the archived warning in accordance with UESP's policy on archiving warnings. --Timenn-<talk> 13:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC) </protect>

You violated etiquette by vandalizing my talk page. I'm not taking it back, so either delete my account or get over it. I stopped using this inaccurate wiki more than a year ago so your petty threats are meaningless. If you choose to abuse your power and delete this account, that's fine, but so long as this account exists, I will not allow the talk page to be vandalized. This is the second time you guys have tried to silence speech from others that dissented from your own; the first time, that "Rat" guy tried to accuse me of using proxies, and this time, you simply deleted their views altogether. Stop making threats and just do it already, because I'm not going to bend over for a petty wiki vandal like you.

Warning

Here is yet another attempt to silence dissention on someone's personal talk page. You want proof in the form of a link? Here it is:

http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_kris&diff=564961&oldid=564960

Timenn vandalized my talk page by deleting comments made someone else regarding the fact that not all use from China is from proxies, as well as follow-up comments made by me critical of the admins for making false accusations and driving users like myself away as a result. He claims that it was just a "misunderstanding," but even if it was, it's still a flagrant breach of wiki etiquette to remove constructive content from someone's personal talk page without making any attempt to first contact that person. That's called vandalism.

I will say it again: Timenn is a vandal. Maybe he wasn't intending to commit vandalism, but that's what he did nonetheless. If he made some attempt to apologize, I would be content to archive my criticisms of him and leave it at that. But so long as he and his friends attempt to threaten me with these fake warnings in order to silence me, I will not remove this content from my talk page. Since I met the conditions of your "warning" by providing proof, I will archive it in a day or two. If Timenn apologizes for vandalizing (intentionally or not) my talk page without my consent, I will archive my criticisms of him as well and just leave the original discussion where it was before this tampering took place.

Or you could simply delete my account. That would silence the criticisms altogether (and save the hassle of having to keep updating this stupid thing that I stopped using over a year ago) without you having to take any personal responsibility for your errors. Either way, it's all the same to me. I don't appreciate being falsely accused of being a spammer, that's why I left. Now I don't appreciate having my talk page vandalized. That's why I'm not backing down. Either somebody on this site needs to take some personal responsibility for the way they've acted or they need to delete this account so I no longer have to have my email inbox spammed with these edits. — Unsigned comment by 67.183.129.249 (talk) on 22 April 2010

Again, I find it interesting how you accuse others of censorship while you yourself keep removing or altering other people's replies. If you want people to seriously consider your appeals to the warnings I advice you to focus on that, rather than insulting other editors. Yes, calling people who act in good faith vandals is not allowed here.

Please note that it is not possible to delete accounts, nor is it in the lines of the nature of a wiki. --Timenn-<talk> 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you were NOT acting in good-faith. You were trying to silence dissenting views by removing content from someone's talk page without their consent. That is not good-faith. That is vandalism.

So long as you don't delete this account or apologize for your vandalism, I will continue calling you a vandal. If you block my IP, I'll simply change it. I will not allow you to use my talk page as a soapbox to slander me. That Rat guy made a false accusation and I will not allow you to cover up the fact that he did so. If you block this account, I will simply create another account with a talk page. Either way, the only way you're going to get rid of me is either (1) Delete this account, (2) Apologize for your vandalism and stop attempting to suppress discussion on my talk page, or (3) Remove the protects on my talk page so I can archive this garbage and restore the original discussion. I doubt you'll do any of these things, so I hope you're prepared to spend the next several years wasting your time trying to get the last word, because I will not go away so long as you continue trying to perpetuate these lies. Vandal. — Unsigned comment by 67.183.129.249 (talk) on 22 April 2010

Please stop overreacting. The reason Timenn removed those comments is because he was trying to avoid exactly what has taken place - a long and protracted discussion with somebody who left the site long ago. It's not vandalism, so stop using the word. Accounts cannot be deleted, so stop asking. If your email account is getting a message when people edit this page, turn off the option in your Preferences. Lastly, please stop threatening to escalate the situation. It's not going to help anybody, and you won't win. As a final resort, I'm sure this page will simply be fully protected. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an overreaction. I was falsely accused of being a hacker for crying out loud, and now when someone posted a comment supporting me on my talk page, one of your admins just happened to quickly delete it (and the one I made as a follow-up) without contacting me first. Perhaps I can't win, but you can't win, either. If you protect this entire talk page, I'll simply create a new account with a new talk page. If you block that, I'll create yet another one under yet another IP/ISP. I can hold you in a perpetual stalemate for days, weeks, months, years if necessary. It only takes me a few minutes each time. I travel cross-country for a living, spending most of my time in hotels and cafe's with wifi hotspots. I also occasionally travel to libraries and universities in my spare time, as you can see from my current IP. I can take a few minutes each day to cause you an headache.

The only way you'll be able to forcibly stop me is to permanently freeze all new user registrations and anonymous posting access altogether. At very least I'll make sure some people have access to the truth if you won't stop removing content from my talk page and replacing it with continued slander. I would be happy to archive all of this and go away if Timenn would simply apologize for the error and remove these dumb protections from my talk page. Either that, or we can keep going back and forth indefinitely, and neither of us will win then. Up to you.

(edit conflict)I'm honestly baffled as to why you consider Timenn's edit vandalism. As he said in his edit summary, he saw edits that were unnecessary and were added to a discussion over a year old, and he removed them. There was no reason for him to assume that the IP editing was you, and I honestly would've done the same. The edit is not vandalism; it does not meet any of our criteria for considering edits vandalous. I understand that you've been offended, though I don't know why, but I'd suggest it was simply a misunderstanding. I don't see where anyone was at fault; two editors made comments on a year-old block notice discussion, neither of which were apparently related to the notice, and an administrator reverted the edits with a perfectly reasonable edit summary. Please understand that, as an administrator, not only is it acceptable for him to do so, but he is actually expected to review recent edits and decide whether they are acceptable. Had you signed the comment you made, or even mentioned that you were the user who received the notice, the comments likely would not have been removed.

Once again, it seems obvious to me that Timenn was acting in good faith. If you have further concerns, the proper course of action would be to bring it up for community discussion, perhaps on the Community Portal. As it stands, further accusations of vandalism will result in blocking. Please understand that this is not a threat, but an attempt to help you understand the situation. If Timenn made vandalous edits, surely it's worth community discussion; if he did not, further discussion is useless. Since the link you provided did not show a clearly vandalous edit so, as I said before, continued baseless accusations will result in blocking. I have not done so at this point because I felt that I might be able to explain the situation adequately. --GK^talk2me 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article, it's a user talk page. Even admins don't go around arbitrarily removing non-spam, non-TOS-violating content from users' talk pages. His stated reason that the argument was "old" wasn't his decision to make because it wasn't his talk page. That's basic wiki etiquette. Whether or not this site observes that is up to you. The link I provided did prove that he made a vandalous edit, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Like I said, your threats are meaningless, because I can create an infinite number of accounts from anywhere, and I will. If Timenn et al are too petty to apologize for this misbehavior, then simply remove the protects from the talk page and I'll archive all of this and restore the page to what it was before Timenn's vandalism attempt. But if your egoes would be too bruised even by this, then I'll be more than happy to be a continued thorn in your side for years and years to come. You can keep blocking my accounts, but I will have the satisfaction of knowing that you're paying a penance for your collective misbehavior by having to waste your time over and over and over again, day after day after day, week after week after week, month after month after month, year after year after year, decade after decade after decade, removing my content and blocking my accounts. I will also strive to create usernames based on Elder Scrolls characters, making them inaccessible to any other new users.

Either way, it's up to you. I was a legitimate user submitting a thoughtful article, but your continued false accusations, slander, and now vandalism of my talk page have forced me to resort to this. You can get over yourselves and give me back my talk page (and subsequently just leave me alone as I really have no interest in returning to this site), and we can both win; or you can continue making threats and trying to block me, and I will in turn be a continued annoyance/inconvenience, and we will both lose. It's up to you. So if you're going to block my account, stop threatening and just do it already so we can get this game started.

<protect>

Warning

If you're going to continue calling editors vandals, please provide proof in the form of links to edits that were clearly vandalous. Continued baseless accusations will result in this account and associated IP addresses being blocked. --GKtalk2me 01:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing UESPWiki for trolling, continuing to make baseless accusations despite being warned to stop, and on-going threats of vandalous behavior. —GKtalk2me 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

</protect>