User talk:Badams118

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Shaolin Kempo Karate, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Shaolin Kempo Karate, you will be blocked from editing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take no pleasure in being right, but it looks like my Shaolin Kempo Karate article wasn't "rubbish" after all. I fully expect to take silence as an apology. Badams118 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your welcome not at the head of this page and understand it. Shaolin Kempo Karate is not an article. It is 11 words with nothing to assert notability or verifiability.

All you are going to achieve by your insistence on recreating it is a block. Why not achieve something positive instead? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion -- if you're going to work on this article, why don't you move this article into your personal userspace? Click on the "move" link at the top, and rename it to User:Badams118/Shaolin Kempo Karate. That way, it doesn't get tagged by other users as vandalism, nonsense, etc. Once you feel it's ready to be included in mainstream Wikipedia, move it back. Matt (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. All that you are achieving right now is a bad experience for yourself. Use patience, use skill, and create an article, even a stub, that will survive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not WIP. It is complete, and I intend for it to be expanded on just like any other article on wikipediaBadams118 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I fear, wholly incomplete. It is not even stub quality. I imagine that, if you re-create it again after the inevitable deletion you will receive a temporary block. Please use pragmatism here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Then create a stub that will survive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stub any more. It is a referenced article. It may be expanded upon by myself or others.

How do I contact an admin about this?--Badams118 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{

I am trying to create an article that has been deleted by an overzealous admin. It was in no way shape or form vandalism. Please have a look for yourself. I need help resolving this issue so that I can create this article that I feel is important and relevant.

TIA--Badams118 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you created the article earlier today at 18:38, March 2, 2009, it was an article subject to speedy deletion arguably under three criterion:

move it to the article space (but note that while we give users leeway to work in subpages, you can't have a subpage of previously deleted content sitting forever; the time for this is a week or so, or the subpage is likely to be deleted on the same bases).

Also, please keep a civil tongue. I understand that you might have been provoked by a post which referred to the content as rubbish (which, fiddle faddle, was a description of the content that was sure to fan flames rather than get your point across), but you were the party refusing to listen here. We are not telling you this to be mean, or supress your content, or any other nefarious intent. What we are here about is keeping the encyclopedia free from unencyclopedic content. For that we have policies. They allow deletion of content on ceetain bases. They allow users to be blocked if they refuse to listen and keep violating our policies. They allow us to protect articles against creation if users keep posting them over and over without listening. Please take my advice and others, because the road you're travelling down currently, i.e., I will do what I want to do, and I will keep doing it, is guaranteed not to end with you getting what you want.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to do that, but I cant even edit right now. Can you remove the block. Clearly, my intent has not been malicious vandalism, and I think this was a bit heavy handed. Thanks.--Badams118 (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see you were blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. Usually when that is done a person is informed with a block notification template; since I didn't see one, I was not aware of it. We do not overturn other administrator decisions lightly and certainly not without discussion. Personally, I do think your conduct was worthy of a block, but I also think an indefinite block as a vandalism only account may be rethought if you agree that you will heed the advice given. Can I ask you to make such a statement below: that you will agree, if unblocked, to reform your previous behavior, that you won't simply post the article without working on it in a supbpage or otherwise act without calm discussion first? Meanwhile, I will post to the blocking admin's talk page. He/she may have turned in for the night so do not expect an immediate answer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin, I agree to unblock if such a statement is made. However, the block will be reinstated if Badams118 simply continues to create a page which has been deleted numerous times over several years because it fails to explain notability, or use proper sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldnt have posted the article in the first place if I had known it had been posted & debated fairly before. As you can see I am a new user. If Fiddle had pointed this out in the first place instead of simply insulting my work, then we wouldnt even have to be having this discussion. Certainly you can agree that my actions were not vandalism. We can disagree on content, but posting what I thought was a relevant article could not be considered vandalism by even the broadest definition. That said, knowing (ex-post) that this article has been posted & debated previously, I see no need to re-post it. If we all treat each other fairly instead of assuming harmful intentions, the community as a whole will certainly benefit. I also think that Fiddle could benefit from some feedback on how to work with new users instead of immediately addressing their work as "rubbish."--Badams118 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted your block. However, bear in mind that if you simply continue to create the deleted pages with the same (or approximate) level of detail, I will block you again. To that end, please take the time to go through the helpful links in the welcome section at the top of this page before jumping back in to article creation. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For whatever it is worth, I was trying to add detail to the article before it was deleted. I tried to use the hangon tag to buy some time.--Badams118 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again badams. Your post to Fiddle Faddle's talk page is unacceptable. I told you to remain

civil (a core policy on Wikipedia), and yet after your unblock, which I procured for you provisionally, your first act is to post an attack on another editor? I now support a reinstitution of your block. This was the opposite of what a user who gets a provisional second chance should be doing and leaves me with little (maybe no) confidence that you will attempt in the future to abide by our policies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

First, If you read my post above again, I actually addressed the issue is said "I understand that you might have been provoked by a post which referred to the content as rubbish (which, fiddle faddle, was a description of the content that was sure to fan flames rather than get your point across), but you were the party refusing to listen here." Second, the following language is indeed an attack: "Hopefully you have learned something from our encounter & have amended your arrogant obtuse attitude. Good luck to you in getting other valuable contributors to Wikipedia deleted & blocked. Surely, you shall need it." Third, you are ignoring where you were in this situation. You were a indefinitely blocked user, unblocked provisionally, and under scrutiny. If you're going to act like this as your first act after being unblocked, what could we possibly expect from you in the future? No. Sorry. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, intervened on your behalf, and your first act was the post an attack.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an attack (ad hominem), that was constructive criticism. There's a difference. "You're an idiot," is an ad hominem attack. It is a baseless insult with no constructive intention. "Rubbish" is an ad hominem attack. There is nothing constructive other than an insult of another contributors work. Telling fiddle they he or she has an "arrogant obtuse attitude" was constructive with the intention of advice on how to better deal with new posters. "Instead of posting rubbish" is both an arrogant and insulting statement. It did nothing to help me create a better article, OR give reasons why the SKK article was being deleted. "Rubbish" is not an objective criteria. "This article has already been posted & debated" is. Of course this fact never was brought up until after the discussion was well out of hand.

Second, you cannot with any intellectual honesty characterize what I posted as "vandalism." My repeated intention was to make a sincere contribution of a topic that I felt is important. I was more than happy to discuss the merits of the article as evidenced by my fruitless attempt to use the "hangon" tag. I literally barely had time to type a few words before the article was again deleted with absolutely zero discussion or valid justification.

I encourage ALL parties to go back and look at how this played out. There was NO discussion other than threats & a dismissive suggestion to go play in your own sandbox. Is this really how you want to run Wiki? It is, after all, your playground, and you get to make the rules. That's fine with me. Maybe you really have dealt with too many vandals, and were quick to lump me in with whatever hooligans you may be used to dealing with. If I really wanted to be a vandal, I could easily use an ip proxy to keep posting & causing trouble here. There would be little that you could do about it, but that is not who I am. I am an honest contributor who took exception to fiddles arrogant and insulting attitude. We can disagree on that assessment, but don't expect me to get on my knees with some "gee, I'm sorry" obsequiesness just so I can join the cool kids club.

My advice to you is maybe you, fiddle & hiber might reconsider your knee jerk reactions & at least assume positive intent (see "community" heading above) & try a discussion that does not start with something along the lines of "your work is rubbish," and end with some coy "I take no pleasure in being correct" attempt to rub my nose in it. --Badams118 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that I should also run a check user on your account to reveal your IP address? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to do so. I haven't made any updates to anything other than this page since I was banned, and this is the only account I have ever created on wiki. Be sure to report back whatever you find out. --Badams118 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... the silence is deafening... --Badams118 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this log then you will see that your account has been blocked. I imagine there are mechanisms for appealing blocks and the blocking admin will doubtless let you know in due course how to do this.

Do please take a step back from the hostile and combative attitude that you are displaying. Wikipedia is not a battle unless an user chooses that it be one. If the article you have been so insistent on re-creating is notable and verifiable, then, after your block, source references and create a good article. But be aware that the article may have been protected against recreation because of your constant recreation of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? You are the one taking a hostile & combative attitude. I am trying to get a legitimate article published. I am far from being finished with getting this important information published.--Badams118 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have used words like "fight". I don't care whether you get this article up or not. I care about quality. You are producing shoddy quality. Overcome that and you stand a chance. If an article by this name comes back and it is shoddy yet again I will, yet again, propose it for the relevant class of deletion.

If you are serious about the article then read and learn about how to create articles that will stick. Use your considerable energy to create something worthwhile, notable and referenced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. Do you not understand the figurative meaning of "fight?" If you dont like the quality of what I post, then help me in improving it. I have never show an unwillingness to cooperate in that effort. I will continue to work to have this article published. You are also free to keep trying to delete it. Clearly this has become a personal issue for you.--Badams118 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from

abuse

. In every message to you I have tried very hard to be helpful. You have ignored that each time and behaved in a combative manner. You have posted a large copyright violation and then ignored all attempts to get you to understand how Wikipedia works. Any interest I had in helping you evaporated as soon as you said "grow up".

Before I read that abusive message I performedthis search. I see no

reliable sources in the first 100 results. Instead of fighting, read and understand the tools. Please do not expect help from anyone if this is the attitude you choose to display. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Now I am abusive? Seriously, is this your first time having a discussion with someone who disagrees with you?--Badams118 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This alleged dialogue is now ended. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How disappointing. It seems someone got their feelings hurt. Where can I mail the tissues to?--Badams118 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]