| Revision as of 04:56, 9 May 2014 view sourceKinu (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators65,033 edits Blocked.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:57, 9 May 2014 view source Kinu (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators65,033 edits You have been indefinitely blocked from editing. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :::First of all, shut up! I have '''not''' called him stupid. You are unscientific again. Very unscientific! And lying again! The correct quotation is: "You seem pretty stupid to me!". It's nothing but '''an impression''' that I got! A vague idea. '''Nothing to be taken serious!''' "you were utterly wrong when it came to the mathematics.", why are you so arrogant (referring to our whole discussion)? I still think I gave a correct possibility to sum it up. "I have seen people banned indefinitely for much less.", '''nonsense!''' All the time it goes blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla with you! I'd be so happy if you had written much less! "Stop for a while to see things from your point of view.", oh I do that very often. I get myself very busy with your posts, like you can see here again. In fact, you're the one who doesn't read my posts! I've already proven that. You said, this discuission makes you tired so that you can't read anymore. "I am not going to respond to any post of yours in the coming two weeks", oh! '''For heavens sake!!!''' "Don't reply to this.", blablabal! I have the right to say my opinion, whether it suits you or not!!! ] (]) 03:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | :::First of all, shut up! I have '''not''' called him stupid. You are unscientific again. Very unscientific! And lying again! The correct quotation is: "You seem pretty stupid to me!". It's nothing but '''an impression''' that I got! A vague idea. '''Nothing to be taken serious!''' "you were utterly wrong when it came to the mathematics.", why are you so arrogant (referring to our whole discussion)? I still think I gave a correct possibility to sum it up. "I have seen people banned indefinitely for much less.", '''nonsense!''' All the time it goes blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla with you! I'd be so happy if you had written much less! "Stop for a while to see things from your point of view.", oh I do that very often. I get myself very busy with your posts, like you can see here again. In fact, you're the one who doesn't read my posts! I've already proven that. You said, this discuission makes you tired so that you can't read anymore. "I am not going to respond to any post of yours in the coming two weeks", oh! '''For heavens sake!!!''' "Don't reply to this.", blablabal! I have the right to say my opinion, whether it suits you or not!!! ] (]) 03:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| {{outdent}} And, with that, consider yourself blocked. I see no evidence that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It seems that your only purpose here is to bait people into arguments and to respond to legitimate questions with irrelevant commentary. Calling people "stupid" and "egocentric" won't do anything to support your point of view, whatever that might be. As you said above, "All the time it goes blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla with you!" ] might be worth a read. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 04:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | {{outdent}} And, with that, consider yourself blocked. I see no evidence that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It seems that your only purpose here is to bait people into arguments and to respond to legitimate questions with irrelevant commentary. Calling people "stupid" and "egocentric" won't do anything to support your point of view, whatever that might be. As you said above, "All the time it goes blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla with you!" ] might be worth a read. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 04:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. <font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | |||
Revision as of 04:57, 9 May 2014
Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow), you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow)! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. |
WP:TPG
If you want to participate at Talk:Naive set theory#Proposed move you are welcome to do so, but please keep your comments on topic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Mathematics. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kinu /c 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thomas, you are allowed to edit here on the assumption you are working in good faith and that you sincerely intend to improve Misplaced Pages articles. I hope you are not just wasting our time. More outbursts like this one, "I hereby define, Paul Halmos' book is crap! " may lead to you being blocked for disruptive editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're very unscientific here, citing totally out of context! If you had read the whole post of mine, you would've understood that it was a pure defense action! Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Give Thomas Limberg one more chance
Hi Thomas!
Cool down! Told you it was a bad idea to be generally rude. Now you have eyes on you.
There is no question that you can contribute constructively if you only change your minds setting a little bit. You aren't stupid, but you have to recognize that you aren't exactly in the company of droolers when you go into the foundations of mathematics here in Misplaced Pages. You did well in a math olympics (third), but I outperformed you. I actually came in second in a beauty contest!!! The contestans were actually me and my two ugly brothers, but I still beat you. YohanN7 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- YohanN7, in my eyes I was not "generally rude"! And even if I was, that would not be a sufficient condition to block someone!!! Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Right, calling people stupid (like in the reference desk, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Mathematics#1+2+3+4+5+... vs. 1+3+5+...) isn't being generally rude. It is being particularly rude, especially since you were utterly wrong when it came to the mathematics. I have seen people banned indefinitely for much less.
- Stop for a while to see things from your point of view. It doesn't serve you well because you obviously have little good judgement at the moment.
- I am not going to respond to any post of yours in the coming two weeks, partly because it makes me look bad (disruptive editors are supposed to be left, well, just unanswered, nod fed), and partly because it is too tiring.
- Don't reply to this. YohanN7 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, shut up! I have not called him stupid. You are unscientific again. Very unscientific! And lying again! The correct quotation is: "You seem pretty stupid to me!". It's nothing but an impression that I got! A vague idea. Nothing to be taken serious! "you were utterly wrong when it came to the mathematics.", why are you so arrogant (referring to our whole discussion)? I still think I gave a correct possibility to sum it up. "I have seen people banned indefinitely for much less.", nonsense! All the time it goes blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla with you! I'd be so happy if you had written much less! "Stop for a while to see things from your point of view.", oh I do that very often. I get myself very busy with your posts, like you can see here again. In fact, you're the one who doesn't read my posts! I've already proven that. You said, this discuission makes you tired so that you can't read anymore. "I am not going to respond to any post of yours in the coming two weeks", oh! For heavens sake!!! "Don't reply to this.", blablabal! I have the right to say my opinion, whether it suits you or not!!! Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
And, with that, consider yourself blocked. I see no evidence that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It seems that your only purpose here is to bait people into arguments and to respond to legitimate questions with irrelevant commentary. Calling people "stupid" and "egocentric" won't do anything to support your point of view, whatever that might be. As you said above, "All the time it goes blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla with you!" WP:CIR might be worth a read. --Kinu /c 04:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kinu /c 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)