User talk:Beckonamist

Welcome!

Hello, Beckonamist, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Calmer Waters 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors.[1] Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. El on ka 20:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kryptos. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Do not remove citations without consensus. -- kainaw ™ 01:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw: As you are clearly unaware of the facts surrounding this case, how dare you presume and label my edits as being unconstructive, and appear to constitute vandalism. Sounds like a perfect example of a WP:AGF violation. Further, your fallacious attempt to justify your perspective only served to clarify your ignorance of the situation. Beckonamist (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka: First off, let me apologize for using the word vandalizing when describing your actions. Though accurate, I was unaware of the word's sensitive nature on Wikipedia. Let me also apologize for the attacks that focused on you, rather than your actions. Again, I was unaware of the calling-a-spade-a-spade Wikipedian policy. I'm sorry.

However, when a cluster of edits that serve only to reduce clarity, obfuscate, mislead, offer information known to be factually incorrect or remove well-documented factually correct information, are all from the same source, one ought to consider the integrity of that source, especially when many of these unfounded actions/edits offer little, wanting, or no justification.

The articles found on your personal website, mentioning the issue at hand, are all distorted and factually incorrect. Reference to them in Wikipedia's Kryptos article, therefore, directly undermines the integrity of the Kryptos article and Wikipedia.

Now, Elonka, I understand that you don't have an academic background. Just note that in academia, the focus of argument is less on someone's position on a topic (what they claim, perhaps even believe), and decidedly weighted much more on the JUSTIFICATION they offer for holding such a position. Forgive me for being schooled in this approach.

I'm curious, what weight you would give to evidence that contradicts your current version of the story? What if that evidence was provided by someone, that one assumes, you would consider as having, at least, some modest amount of integrity?

What if that evidence was, ironically, provided by YOU yourself?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed that you maintained one position at one time (justified by the fact that you, personally were privy to the facts that embody that position).

And then, later, conveniently (disingenuously?), changed to a different position (justified, according to you, by the fact that some people, whom you knew were unaware of the facts [reporters], happen, trivially, to be unaware of the facts.

Evidence? Your current (duplicitous?) position is well-documented on Wikipedia. Your earlier position (though, as I understand it, flawed) is well-documented in an interview you did. An interview that happened to take place shortly after the events in question.

Instead of a link, perhaps, as evidence, I should include a transcript of the interview, focusing on the relevant parts? How about the last part of the interview? You know. Feedback would be helpful here as we both know that (not a threat, but a simple observation) my last suggestion may lead to your banishment from Wikipedia and the obliteration of a modest administrative career.

Also, curiously, What specifically was this poorly sourced information you claim I inserted?

In short, based on the evidence we both know exists, the edits you have made in the Wikipedian Kryptos article, and the Kryptos articles (found on your personal website) that these (your) edit's reference, are far too slanted (one might say biased) in their misrepresentation of the facts (one would expect that ANY slant or misrepresentation of the facts would suffice). Moreover, the evidence you offer is found wanting (unsupportive, if not actually helpful to a position that contradicts the very position you currently maintain).

Therefore, edits which you erroneously call vandalism are, in fact, simple corrective improvements that serve to genuinely enhance the article, and Wikipedia. Beckonamist (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --El on ka 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Edit warring and refusal to assume good faith at Kryptos and associated talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Please reconsider how you approach editing and conversing with other users. Please try to discuss matters civilly on the talk page, and reach a consensus compromise instead of trying to force through your personal view, even if you believe that you are right. Any administrator may unblock this account without consulting me first, if this user expresses an interest and understanding in how to work collaboratively. --Jayron32 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights: Why wouldn't what you said, and I quote...

"this user doesn't seem to be someone we really need to keep around. Maybe a 72 hour block would get through to him, but it's not too promising"

be itself a WP:AGF violation? It certainly is offensive. BOTNL, what you do next will speak volumes. Beckonamist (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32: Did you warn me prior to issuing this block? If not, why not? Or is this but another example of WP:AGF? Beckonamist (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite, even encourage, both of you to educate yourselves of the events leading up to the case. The bread crumbs I've left on the Kryptos article's discussion page, including the links, should suffice. However, be aware that there is more, much more - some that will clarify, some that will substantiate, and some that will damn. Some of this additional information, however, may be currently out of your reach. To get a clear understanding you need to join the Yahoo Kryptos group (the one where you need to apply and be admitted). Although I've never applied for membership, I have been afforded enough temporary access by a number of my students and colleagues, to have a copy of all messages in the group, from its inception up to about two to three years ago. The events on which this case is base begin around 2005. I know this is a lot to ask, unfortunately, without such an investment, one can hardly be expected to be qualified to judge this case.

My interest is solely to acquire justice for a colleague that won't stand up for herself. In fact, although she has claimed to me to have, years ago, worked out the next two steps in the process to acquire the plaintext solution to K4, she lost interest in Kryptos after the sculptor released a clue to its solution a few years back. Beckonamist (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further concerns[edit]

Becknoamist, I have asked Jayron32 (talk · contribs) to re-block your account, until you are willing to promise to be civil, and to engage in discussion on the Kryptos talkpage rather than simply edit-warring. You are welcome to participate in the discussion at User talk:Jayron32. --El on ka 21:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

But, .. if what you say is true, you've already gone over the limit... By those standards -- the standards you just finished quoting -- shouldn't YOU be blocked? It's called hypocrisy. Look it up. Beckonamist (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. El on ka 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems lead to same results[edit]

I have blocked you for two weeks. If you wish to be unblocked, follow the instructions listed above. Continued participation at Wikipedia will be contingent upon behaving in a collaborative manner, using a tone of cooperation rather than adopting a battleground mentality and a use of the proper dispute resolution channels rather than attacking other editors and edit warring at the same article over and over. --Jayron32 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just collecting evidence. Don't mind me. Beckonamist (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For evading your block with a new account, I have reset the block for two weeks from today. If you continue to do this, the block may be extended to indefinite. It would be best if you followed expectations regarding your behavior. By following behavioral expectations, you will again be allowed to edit Wikipedia when this block expires, or if you can successfully use the unblock template as described above. Repeatedly violating behavioral norms at Wikipedia will result in you not being able to work here any more. How you choose to behave is up to you. Please consider playing by the rules. --Jayron32 21:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]