User talk:Truthseeker 85.5

Welcome!

Hello, Truthseeker 85.5, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

I'd have to say it doesn't look good that all your edits appear to be a reaction to Ghirlandajo. Can you explain why you need to track him in this way? Blnguyen | rant-line 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best if you have a long term interest in contributing to use a username.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truthseeker. I just caught sight of this remark of yours, that you posted a few days ago on Thatcher131's RFA. To go off at a tangent at one user's RFA in order to sneer at another user in such a way is extremely inappropriate. If you have no respect for Ghirlandajo, then please show a little self-respect. Don't post personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I would strongly appreciate if you remove this xenophobic comment. Alex Bakharev 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alex.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I still intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against

Such edits are unacceptable. Not only spamming people's talk pages asking for votes uncool, but such attacks violate the

Please do not remove this notice. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on styling me "hyrla" in your edit summaries? Is this a pejorative term in Polish? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing the warnings. Thank you.

It's clear that you are not archiving this page, but rather removing notices. In addition, a thread has been started on

Please read this policy. Some advertising is allowed, but some is looked down upon. Also, the tone of any ads should be non-inflammatory and neutral, as you have been notified before. If you want to help any side, please don't undermine it with uncivil behaviour.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have blocked you for 1 month because I have to agree with Irpen on

Upon your return, it seems that you've restored to stalking and harassment almost immediately. And because of such, I've reblocked you - this time for 2 months. Please seriously consider what you're here to do, as it appears your mind has not changed just yet. Khoikhoi 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthseeker 85.5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reconciliatory tone interpreted as personal attack with vague explanation of "stalking". See recent edits for proof. Referal to previous block is also on shaky foundations of "stalking" (what, whom?). See below to properly assess the situation, following more tailing by Irpen.

Decline reason:

I have reviewed your edits in question, and it's apparent that you're less interested in contributing to the project than you are to pursuing some sort of agenda with other users. Wait out your new block and consider exactly what it is that you're here for. If the answer is anything other than contributing to an encyclopedia, then consider finding another website. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

See this and this for what was behind the original block and this for what brought about the current block's extension. --Irpen 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For instance [1]. See Renata3 page comments and see who is stalking who. It was Irpen to turn this into some personal affair, when he decided to suggest blocking me. Im afraid this might turn into a spiral of megalomania, if such undeserved critique receives such approval (from a select few).

And as I predicted in my "personal attack":

/Your campaign for censorship got a strong head start. I dont blame you, as it's the guy below who is adding fuel to the fire. Friends? :) Think twice when you give weight to what may be insinuations. Truthseeker 85.5 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)/

Irpen generated so much interest as to get me blocked in a whiff.

-Truthseeker 85.5 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]