User talk:81.137.62.113

A kitten for you!

You are welcome. Just maintain the flow and discuss first in the talk if somebody reverts you (as per WP:BRD). Regards.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Road Warriors

Hi. If you want to help, you would do a better job improving the article and searching sources, no just deleting everything just to prove a WP:POINT because we deleted the Legion of Dummies part. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As you no doubt expected, you have been blocked from editing again, for continuing the same kind of editing that led to your previous blocks. Naturally, this time the block is for a significantly longer period. Obviously I don't need to tell you what the problems have been, as you already know, but for the benefit of others who may read this, this editor has a long-term history of disruptive editing of many kinds, including, but not restricted to: edit-warring; deliberately disruptive editing to make a point; stalking of an editor and attempting to get that editor blocked in a childish revenge attack for an incident which took place over a year before (during which time this editor was blocked for a year); persistently combative and aggressive battleground approach to any editors with whom he or she has any disagreement. No change or improvement has been achieved by escalating blocks building up from 1 day to 1 year in length. JBW (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

For the benefits of those same people likely to visit this page, I will now analyse and eviscerate the above tripe from JBW.

His entire pretext contains one correct statement, and one only: that my editing after my year ban was no different to how it had been before. As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice daily so there is no plaudit for this observation. My editing was not in any way nonconstructive even then. I was unfairly banned even the first time. I faced hostility from one editor who in turn had an army of well-wishers by his side. The bottom line is, Oknazevad breached WP policy the first time round, and then he breached it again. He tripped himself up a few days ago, and rather than having the integrity to correct himself and behave in good faith, he resorted to mud-raking, changing his story from one edit to the next, and truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to stay "legit" and fabricate a false account that I was the wrongdoer. Funnily enough, nobody has EVER cited an edit I have made and said, "this is nonconstructive" in accordance with XYZ. Oknazevad and his acolytes including admins standing foursquare with him have invoked nonexistent technicalities to protect his disruptive nature and to stonewall editors such as myself from improving the project. "Hounding" is a blatant joke. No policy dictates which articles an editor can or cannot make changes to, or which editors' contributions you can monitor. All the rules dictate is the nature of one's edits, and as Oknazevad flagrantly breached WP policy in 2019, I had the same moral obligation to keep tabs of him as any recent change patroller watching the activities of vandals. Furthermore, Oknazevad's knuckles are dragging the ground both now and in 2019. He knows nothing about WP policies. He accused me of POINTy vandalism which had he even had a rudimentary understanding of policies and guidelines, he would have known that this is a contradiction in terms. Vandalism cannot be carried out to make a POINT. POINTs in turn have their own ways of being disruptive, but the fifth bullet point ("unsourced") which most approximates my example does not touch the sides of Vandalism, and moreover is irrelevant, because I know my wrestling, and when I say something is unsourced, that means it is FLAT OUT WRONG. You don't find sources to show that Kerry Von Erich wrestled with the name "Warrior" in 1990-1992 because he didn't have that name as part of his title in 1990-1992 and as such the entire passage collapses. If I suddenly said "It needed to be in a provincial capital starting with M, and so Minsk was chosen because Minsk is the county town of Dorset", you don't add a source which says Dorchester is the county town, as what would that do? You simply remove the whole passage as unsourced, but perhaps I should have said "this is wrong". The fact of the matter is that Oknazevad was asserting himself at an article on which I am certain that he is siblimely ignorant, he is an obnoxious ignoramus, because his knuckles - are dragging the ground. Then he calls me "full of shit" (I am not citing it because it would make no difference). As this is so, I have no fear in labelling him a 100% Piece of shit. Too late to pretend he was acting in good faith. No he wasn't.

As for HHHPedigree. He now has to eat his words. An editor called Bottle of Milk joined the debate on Road Warriors. And that is it, sans evidence he/she and I are the same person. Then a checkuser looks into it and finds indeed that he/she abused multiple accounts - but I have not been said to be in that list, and yet my IP is static because I never switch off the router. If I did, I could be back no problem with a new IP inside 30 seconds of the old one lapsing. I simply do not WISH to edit via any other channels. But the real bugbear is Bbb23. I smelt sulphur the first time I saw one of his contributions a year ago (just before ban). I put to him a civilised point, and he weaselled out of it with no reply. A few days ago he nominated himself to lead the charge over Oknazevad's 100% BREACH of 3RR, and the best he could do was call the petition "malformed and stale". And like a fair-minded observer is supposed to believe that he arrived at this conclusion on the strength of Oknazevad's apologetic defence. Bottom line, if the presentation were "malformed" (which it isn't, a monkey can make sense if it), then why didn't Bbb23 post a message telling he how to correct it. It is proof by assertion, and I believe that both Bbb23 and JBW could have saved everybody's time if they had been more honest from the get-go instead of producing nonsense using argument from repetition as the authoritative base. The fact is that there are Oknazevads all over the project and if I did edit again, it would only be a matter of time before I ran into another one. I ask that next time, just have the decency to say "might is right" here, policies are just an embellishment, but in the end of the day, we support accounts over IPs, and people we like more than those we don't, and so we bully the ones we don't favour". That way the activities will be consistent with the motives. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

---