It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
I've been reviewing your pattern of recent edits and see a lot of comments that could be interpretted as extremely incivil. I'd encourage you to assume good faith on the part of other editors, particularly in the maintenance of this talk page and your responses to other users on both their talk pages and in AfDs. Thank you :). alphaChimp(talk) 05:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. alphaChimp(talk) 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It is not acceptable to remove warnings from your talk page. Sorry. If you continue to mount personal attacks against myself and other editors, you will be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. alphaChimp(talk) 05:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. alphaChimp(talk) 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want my respect, first show me some respect. If I request that someone respect my wishes, their first gesture of civility and respect would be to respect my wishes. That is one of the hallmarks of civility. The user of logical and reasonable debate shows hallmarks of civility. Reverting the contents of another user's personal talk page is the primitive act of the less than civilized. janniejdoe 22:41 17 September 2006
The activity that is occuring here is clearly biting on newer users and abuse of wikipedia administrator power. Abuse of administrator power is the the true form of uncivilized behavior here. It demonsrates a total lack of respect for another person's space to come and scrawl graffiti all over it, to make threats, and so forth. It is disrespectful and shameful. Go scrawl graffiti on your own spaces. I am not the person being rude here. You people really need to think about this. It is like you come to my house, disrespect me in my house, and then tell my I am wrong that you are not welcome. Well you are not welcome here. It is you who are being hostile on my territory. It is ridiculous. It is abusive of me and my talk page space. I am going to write a letter to the wikipedia founder about this kind of bizarre ideas about what consititutes politeness. You people are rude. You lack respect. You lack civility. janniejdoe 22:58 17 September 2006
The rudeness against my personal space has been an abuse of wikipedia in my opinion . These abuses have been an unwarranted personal attack against me on my personal territory. I have done my level best to make a good contribution to wikipedia content, and it is being trashed by people without good or decent purpose. Your behavior is called "biting" newer users. It gives Web 2.0 environments a bad name. Stop biting me and my extremely good faith effort to contribute to wikipedia. Enough is enough. I have even been falsely accused plagiarism on wikipedia today. All you have have behaved rudely, disrespectfully, and shamefully. Anyone who attempts to disable my ability to conttribute to wikipedia will have abused their administrative power, about which I will complain to the highest wikipedia authority. Shame on all of you. janniejdoe 23:07 17 September 2006
You have been blocked for incivility, warning removal, personal attacks for a period of 8 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp(talk) 06:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue removing warnings, this talk page will be protected. alphaChimp(talk) 06:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my intention to report you: Alphachim for abuse of administrative power. I believe that you should have your admin powers removed. You are disrespectful, uncivilized, and abusive. You don't even seem understand when to mind your own business. You don't even seem to have read the wikipedia pages on how to treat newer users. This is my space here. What you are doing amounts to unwarranted graffit. Both your threats and your actions are an abuse of administrative power about which I intend to report you to a higher authority. janniejdoe 23:25 17 September 2006
Please do. I'd like to see that, actually. Try WP:AN/I - Alison✍ 06:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
| Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings.
Agreed - Alison✍ 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most hilarious aspect of all this is that from what I can tell - since alphachimp didn't include any citations or references, is about my very own talk page, not about any of my substantive contribution to wikipedia. It is autocratic idiocy like this that turns off the average person from contribution to projects like wikipedia. The mentality that places like this breed are totally laughable. I will end this day knowing and believing I contributed well to the "actual" content of wikipedia, in spite of the unwarranted, rude, abusive, actions of a few wikipedians, and an even fewer wikipedia admins. Hooray for that at least. Boo, on the nature of creepy characters on the internet who lack focus on the subject matter at hand. Today that was about seeing that a notable article, and a notable, hard working, man remained a contribution on wikipedia. Thanks to Omicronpersei8 I will archive the AlphaChimp abuse at an appropriate interval on my calendar. Thank goodness this is only the internet after all. janniejdoe 23:54 17 September 2006
Yes, you *did* make some excellent contributions, especially to the Toby Meltzer article. But you were also incredibly rude to just about everyone. *And* you broke the rules. So not good and this is the legacy that tends to get left behind, y'know? Anyways - talk to you later when you get back on. Maybe we can work together - Alison✍ 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JannieD,
I read thru the AFD on Toby Meltzer (please don't take my delete vote personally) & ended up stumbling across a number of related entries on techniques which you've contributed to. A lot of them suffer from sparse documentation re. the contributions of individual surgeons. These entries are more professional when they have pubmed ref's attached and when they avoid looking like catalog a surgeons. If you look at summaries of procedures or areas in surgery or medicine, you usually see more the sentinal contributions pointed to. Let me know if I can help you with formatting some of the ref's on those things as I had to learn the hard way.Droliver 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First: I deleted my userpage. Because I can, as is my right.
Second: You say "or in your talk pages, where you use delete to archive information on your user talk page regularly, where I was told it is against policy to use delete to archive things, that they must be 'archived' by another admin appropriately named 'AlphaChimp'". This makes so little sense that I'm getting a headache thinking about it. First, I've never used "delete" to archive my talk pages, although I do cut and paste moves. My archives are clearly linked on my talk page, and the method one uses is up to the user. No-one is under any obligation to have any specific admin archive their page. And in case you haven't figured it out, I'm an admin.
Third: If you edit my userpage again, it will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is apparently meant to be a "notable" use of administerial prerogative, or maybe the above was meant to be an example of WP:AGF, or maybe the above was how some Wikipedian admins believe they best represent what Wikipedia "is all about", or maybe I am to interpret the above an example of civility, or maybe this is an example of "due process" is the "future" technocratic, rather than egalitarian, world, or maybe or maybe it was ... most reasonable users will likely user their imaginations, Shazaam?. Janniejdoe 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
| Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings.
