User talk:Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow)

Hi Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow)! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia: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 ^t/_c 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, you are allowed to edit here on the assumption you are working in good faith and that you sincerely intend to improve Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Right, calling people stupid (like in the reference desk, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" and telling them to "Now shut the hell up!!!!!" 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 ^t/_c 04:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:NOTHERE. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Kinu ^t/_c 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu, first of all, to understand my posts: You have to read the preceding discussion! You have to consider, I was still upset that YohanN7 insulted me (crackpot) at least three times! I just defended myself. 93.197.30.75 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow)[reply]

I did read the discussion. That (and all of your other posts) would be where I got your quotes from. (Likewise, I don't see the word "crackpot" used to describe you anywhere.) You're welcome to continue digging the hole deeper, but I would take some time to read what's on this page and let it sink in before making any unblock request. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did call him crank for which crackpot is a synonym. (And you might probably guess why.) YohanN7 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fore reference, the discussion in which you may find me calling him a crank is here [1]. It's rather long, but fortunately sometimes entertaining. YohanN7 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will say this: the only page you are allowed to edit during your block is this one, while logged in, and your comments should be relevant to your block, as indicated in the template above. Posting elsewhere as an IP is considered block evasion. Any such comments will likely be removed and may serve to undermine any request for unblock you post. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, defending oneself doesn't give an editor license to be discourteous and uncivil. Wikipedia isn't some free-for-all message board. Please read WP:FIVEPILLARS which concerns the founding principles of editor behavior on Wikipedia. Also, if you choose to WP:SOCK, you can't expect to be unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hereby warning you! I've had enough now with you! I'm pushing the German Wikipedia community upon you now! You will see (/get/experience) your blue wonder, now! Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ozob (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]