User talk:Litch

Welcome!

Hello, Litch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Domino Harvey

Hi, regarding the above article, could you please cite sources for the various names you are adding to the article as the people who allegedly found her dead? Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite, please take the time to read the entire citation before reverting. [1] Litch Mon Jul 10 06:34:43 PDT 2006

I did indeed read that report and it states that a "Peter Dice" found her, not either of the two people you are trying to write into the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name corrected. Please avoid editing my entries if at all possible, I believe you have begun to take this personally, I have. Litch

I have not taken this personally and I will not refrain from editing your contribtions if you continue to add false information. I would also ask you to avoid using edit summaries to make false allegations about other editor's alleged laziness. Thankyou and goodnight. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to User:Sarah Ewart during July 10 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Srose (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were not nonsense, they were sourced and accurate. Litch 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were a direct personal attack and will lead to you getting blocked if you continue. If you have a serious issue with Sarah Ewart you should present it to her in a civil fashion in order to resolve the problem. Tyrenius 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, noting people find her abrasive (as was evidence in the citation and in her own talk) is not an attack, but an accurate description. I even went so far as to modify the comment and remove the suggestion she was lazy (as was made manifest by the fact that rather than correcting a problem or adding to an entry she simply reverted it) since she objected to it so strenuosly. I attempted to resolve our conflict politely and she spit on me lexically so I thought it approriate to give fair warning to any other poor soul she harasses. Litch 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because the information you were attempting to add was patently false and not supported by the link you were citing as evidence. I then came here and quite nicely asked you to please explain. You then became rather nasty, accused me of being "lazy" and began posting personal attacks about me. For someone who claims to want me to avoid them, you sure are going out of your way to make sure you continue interacting with me. I suggest you let it go and move on. If you ensure your future edits are correct and you refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries and vandalising other user's pages, I am sure you will not have these problems. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just FYI, one of the people you accuse of being my "sockpuppet" is an Administrator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that he's threating me and trying to intimidate me rather than let a mediation process unfold I doubt he should be an administrator. I'm new but I am at least trying to follow community standards, you on the other hand consistantly seem to irritate people. I note someone else has a new complaint regarding your editing ~~and that you were blocked by the 3 Revision Rule in the Domino_Harvey entry~~. The preponderance of evidence clearly shows who is in the wrong.Litch 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked for 3RR or anything else. For evidence, please see the block log: [2]. Please cease making false accusations. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have been if I had not been making changes amid your revert war on me. Litch 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from this behaviour

I consider your behaviour through the edit dispute on Domino Harvey [3] and subsequently to amount to harassment of Sarah Ewart. Since my warning above about your posts on her user page,[4] you have now posted another unnecessarily provocative comment on her talk page.[5]. The next time you make unwarranted comments in this way concerning her, I will block you. Tyrenius 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that wikipedia worked on concensus and not fiat, I have submitted a request for mediation but rather than conform to the community standards and allow that process to expand you have instead decided to use your power and postion to intervene on behalf of someone who is obviously your friend. You are clearly a textbook example of some of the fundamental criticisms of this venue.Litch 01:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that harrassment will result in being blocked. If you behave civilly and refrain from personal insults, then you will not have a problem. Tyrenius 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe what I am doing is harassment, I made no personal insults and instead noted only the feelings of others about Ms Ewart and went out of my way to make such a description inoffensive. You are obviously biased towards a friend (or is it lover?). You were aware of the mediation request but unwilling to allow that process to unfold you instead threaten and intimidate me.Litch 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I am blocked by what I consider to be immature aggression by Tyrenius abusing his perogatives. I would like for him to remove the block and, if he feels it is absoloutely necessary to have me blocked to have it done by a neutral third party. Litch 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC) <nowikiw>[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

</nowikiw>

I'm a neutral third party admin. Explain why you wish to be unblocked a bit further. -- Samir धर्म 03:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of contention is whether my actions with regard to sarah_ewart were harassment, I have avoided editing her talk page as ordered to by Tyrenius and he nevertheless blocked me. Litch 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for then turning your attack onto me as seen above and on my talk page. This includes insinuations about my private life. Tyrenius 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below regarding my comment to you. I made no insinuations regarding your private life, I mearly was attempting to be accurate as to why you were behaving immaturely in my conflict with your friend sarah_ewart if you objected to the reference to her being your lover (the only explanation I could come up with for such an extreme reaction) you had merely to note it and I would remove it. Litch 03:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for harrassment and personal attacks, following your post above and here, after two warnings. Tyrenius 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice was neither harassing nor an attack, it was an appeal for you to act in a mature fashion and resist abusing your perogatives, but you apparently could not. I'll also not you only provided one warning. Litch 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Reviewed the entire situation and I think the block is appropriate. -- Samir धर्म 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]