User talk:Bef3481(2)

November 2015

Hello, I'm Callmemirela. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Criminal Minds (season 11), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Nowhere does it say this certain episode has a production code of 1120 or whatever. It's not stated in any sources, thus WP:UNSOURCED. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Looks like I was right. And I promptly provided the details you so desperately thought I left out intentionally. We all make mistakes. There is not a single fact on that page now which can be contested, and no amount of colons can change that. Bye. Bef3481(2) (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Rather than having a tantrum when your episode information is reverted, you might want to review WP:RS, which will give you a better sense of when your sources are sufficient to support the edits you are making. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and the standard is much higher. We may think we know all the S5 episode titles, but what's circulating is largely the result of fan tweets, alleged set-side information, a picture shown at a convention and similarly flimsy evidence. The production and the network make changes, rumors are wrong, and spoiler websites make mistakes all the time, given they don't fact check. You'll be happier if you step back and wait for more solid information. The titles are all on the POI wiki. So what if they're not here until CBS confirms them? The world won't come to an end. BTW, you might also review the policy on personal attacks, and avoid edit summaries such as your last one. --Drmargi (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Hello, while your edits are appreciated, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That being said, please refrain from making short summaries before episodes have aired. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at List of Person of Interest episodes, you may be blocked from editing. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC) My disruptive editing? You're the one who has been nitpicking and reverting as if you run the site, but whatever, I stood down almost 10 hours ago... my latest edit was earlier today to get rid of a bunch of inaccurate air dates. My most current sets of references, where the writers themselves clearly state the information is correct, (I don't know if you bothered to read it where Andy Callahan says "I co-wrote it with Melissa [the 100th]") just like the writers/director reference for episode 12 which was provided to me by Erik Mountain says, "Greg and I co-wrote 512, which he directed". You kept that reference even though he doesn't provide the last name; for all we know, he could be referring to Gregory Peck, right? Isn't that the logic you're using behind the front of vague rules which technically support my edits for episodes 6 and 10?...

Neither of the tweets are solicited; the tweet with Andy was originally to compliment him on 412, which at the time I had just seen, and Hillary thanked me for my support, which wasn't the first time I tweeted with her, either; guess some people only see what they want to see if it suits their needs. If you're not gonna accept Andy's tweet for episode 10, then you should delete the reference by Erik Mountain (MY reference) for episode 12. But hey, whatever, man; you'd rather stay on a ridiculous power trip than have accurate information. Just know when all the info for episodes 6 and 10 finally surfaces, (in the way of which your majesty approves, of course) remember I was right all along. :) Episode 506 exists, and there's nothing you or Drmargi can do about it. Cover your eyes when it comes on TV I guess... You started this edit war; do not blame it on me. If you're this much of a bully behind a keyboard, ...well I won't violate Wikipedia's rules by finishing that sentence. Enjoy the information only you want to see. And by the way, you're welcome for providing the title for the 100th episode and the writers & director for the 2nd last! All me. My "disruptive editing" has filled in a good portion of the Season 5 info. I'll go work on pages that don't have petty cyber-bullies. I'll learn those rules very well, and when I do, there won't be a thing you can do to stop me from contributing, without severly breaking the 3RR rule that is... I've got some Wikipedia rules to learn, until then I'll be back in May. Please stop your irrational deletion of accurate information. Bye Bef3481(2) (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Just read the WP:No original research policy, which you've bent quite a bit to suit your desires. Anyway, since I'm new to the technicalities of Wikipedia, you've won; I'll stand down. But I'll be back, with accurate info. Bye Bef3481(2) (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bef, I'm an administrator at the English Wikipedia. I know it can be frustrating to see work that you're confident about be reverted because other editors aren't jazzed with the references you've provided. That's sometimes how it goes around here. The good news is that Wikipedia has no deadline, so if incorrect or incomplete information has to sit in an article until it can be reliably updated, that's okay. Edit warring, however, is not the way to go. At the first sign of objection, you should go to the talk page and seek consensus. Sometimes you'll get it, sometimes you won't. If you don't get consensus, you gotta move on. Like I said, there's no deadline. Edit warring is considered disruptive and does frequently result in edit suspensions. Since you've acknowledged above that you're dropping the stick on this, I see no reason to interrupt your editing. But please keep some of these points in mind if you can, and if you feel overwhelmed, feel free to solicit my advice. Much appreciated, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I simply can't express enough how much I appreciate the kindness and consideration you've shown me. I will indeed take you up on the advice offer, and I've been reading through WP:V and WP:No original research. Quite helpful indeed! Thanks a million, Brendan. Bef3481(2) (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bef, I have no choice but to indefinitely block you. It's not permanent, but we need to hash some stuff out before an unblock will be considered. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's extraordinarily important here. Calling people names is already a violation of WP:CIVIL, but floating threats of physical violence takes incivility to a whole new extreme and is totally intolerable. Edit summaries like this, where you write My sandbox, my shit. Bitch. Btw, i'd LOVE to meet Drmargi and FavreFan in person. Tough behind a keyboard they are, but in person, I will break their bones and snap their fucking necks. I'm trained in Karate, BrzJiu-Jitsu & Kav Maga. is completely unacceptable and I've had to report it to the Wikimedia Foundation. Ad hominem is never the way to resolve a content dispute, nor is threatening physical violence. The community believes very strongly that editors should comment on content, not on contributors, and this includes in edit summaries. I implore you to reconsider how you interact with people here. When you're ready to have an admin consider unblocking you, please open an unblock request and we'll go from there, but any responding admin needs to be assured that you understand why you were blocked and that you will not continue the same behavior. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bef3481(2) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, to whomever receives this message, I've made a huge mistake and I completely understand why I've been blocked; I thought that what I typed in my sandbox edit summary could not ever be seen by another human being, especially not a Wikipedia Administrator. I should've known better, though; I know my way around systems a bit, and since Wikipedia Admins have ADMINISTRATIVE access, of course they can see everything on the accounts. I am so sorry that I did not remember that before typing in that awful, ugly, barbaric set or words, and I'm sorry my actions have caused you to feel the need to block me. The reason is obviously (and rightfully) because of something I had vented to myself, using one of the edit summary fields of my sandbox, but having absolutely NO idea that it could make its way to the Administrators of this site, or that it would eventually represent myself as a violent or hateful person, whatsoever; it was written with the assumption that no other eyes would ever see it, and that it would be the only time I would ever see it as well, purely for the sake of venting, with no disrespect attempted to be shown to Wikipedia; I'm extremely embarrassed that those words have even been seen; I am a peaceful person who had a momentary lapse of anger which I vented, not knowing the sandbox edit summary page to which I vented it would ever be seen. I cannot express how sorry I am that you had to see those words on this website. That behaviour was despicable and Wikipedia (even a sandbox with the assumption no one would ever see it) is not a place to vent one's anger directed toward another. I would not ever use words like that unless I were (which I was) under the impression that no other human being would ever see it. I had been completely under the impression, which I now know to be quite false, that my sandbox was only for my own eyes, and that what is said to myself in my sandbox would stay there, and I never check my history, proving that I do indeed need to learn the rules better. I haven't had the easiest time learning how to edit, even though I've always had a passion for helping to better and more accurately inform whomever might be reading the page, namely Criminal Minds and Person of Interest. I was under the impression, because of my edits having been reverted and another user stating the reason in an aggressive manner, that they were personally attacking me. It even did happen a couple of times, and ever since then I had felt like I was the "odd man out" and I suppose the language I've used was excessively hostile. I know now that nobody on Wikipedia is out to get me, and that I have a lot to learn when it comes to interacting with fellow editors over the internet, something I'm not used to. I greatly apologize for the appalling behavior I've displayed and I'd like to promise that it will not happen again, not in any form; not in my sandbox, not to another user, and not on any open talk pages; not ever again. In order to help prove this to you, I would like to direct you my most recent post, which I made earlier this morning or early afternoon, on the Talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Person_of_Interest_episodes/ I addressed another editor, one with whom there was previously a disagreement, and I interacted in a very respectful manner, telling him that I've learned a lot from himself and another editor while contributing to that particular page. I apologize for having been hostile in previous editing situations, and I do take full responsibility for my ugly behaviour. In order to calm myself down before responding in the first place, I vented a bit, to myself, using an edit summary field of my sandbox, then promptly deleted the text. I interacted with User:Drmargi earlier today, on the List of Person of Interest episodes talk page, and I did so quite respectfully. Please read that post before you consider blocking me from editing; I do sincerely apologize for having been disrespectful to other users and I pledge not to behave that way toward anyone else on Wikipedia again, if you can please see it fit to unblock me. Yes I was bullied as a young child, and yes I should not have been that aggressive in my sandbox summary as I was, even given the fact that I thought no one else would ever see it; I need to leave my residual anger issues before I use Wikipedia and edit. I have a high amount of respect for Wikipedia, which is why I created the account in the first place; I want to help make pages more accurate using my knowledge, skills, and passion, but I do agree that this is no place for aggression, and those aggressive words are words that I vow never to use (or even come close to using) while talking to another editor. I think the fact that I did make that talk page post a while before this block message was sent to me, proves that I am sincere in my pledge and I have learned my lesson. As far as my own sandbox edit summary remark (which was horrifying, ugly, and disturbing, and something that I never thought another human being would see) I now know that what I say in those sandbox edit summaries does indeed matter, and can affect the impression I give to administrators. That's a lesson I will not forget. Please reconsider your decision and I can personally assure you that my behavior toward others, on my sandbox, and on Wikipedia in general will dramatically improve. Yours in kind, Brendan F.Bef3481(2) (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thank you for acknowledging the problematic behavior and assuring us that you won't continue it. I've unblocked your account. Please also note that all of your edit summaries can be seen by any editor, not just admins. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bef3481(2) (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Temper Problem

Chill out dude... just reading through some of the comments you have made on wikipedia (revers, edits etc).. man you really have an anger control issue! Chill out :) I've not reported your comments on this occasion, but should this behaviour continue I will be left with no other choice than to log the issue. Maybe step away from the keyboard and focus on your studies for a while.

Namaste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.172.223 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Related to this, I would again suggest that you dial down the "I was right" rhetoric in your POI edit summaries. You're not making any friends, and seem to be unable to differentiate between an edit being removed because someone thinks it's wrong, and one being removed because it's not sourced reliably. Please think before you add your summary, and try not to take being reverted to personally. --Drmargi (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well Margi, I took the advice of the sine bot above your "suggestion" and have focused on my studies for a while in addition to my piano and meditation. Martial Arts without meditation plus an anger problem - arisen from years of systemic bullying, followed by an extreme feeling of lacking control is definitely the ingredients for the perfect storm! Living in the wake of so much terrorism and the LGBT community being slaughtered in Orlando certainly hasn't helped (as I am a proud member of that community).

I've thought about my little outbursts and have decided to clean up my side of the street. So I'll say this with as much respect as possible: I take full responsibility for the rude, angry tone in some of my edit summaries and other responses, but this is not the first time you have driven a fellow user to anger by undermining them. You are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia and you're a great editor, but I think you need to work on showing some humility. You relish the fact that you are right most of the time and have WP policies to back it up; that's a great thing, but it doesn't mean it's okay to passive-aggressively undermine the credibility of other users. (there could be several references but I'll use the POI talk page, long before I came into the picture)

Just so we're clear here, I've got a tremendous amount of respect for you, because I respect WP and its rules regarding other users; "I was right" was not rhetoric; it was the truth. I can now indeed differentiate between reverting an edit because it personally thought to be "wrong" and reverting an edit because it is insufficiently sourced. You were right on many occasions, but so was I and sometimes you responded with just as much passive-aggression as I did with anger. I apologize for my part; it wasn't right. But, make no mistake, you can sometimes be a bully, especially when you and [other users] gang up on someone who is only trying to contribute and show them just how wrong they are... I won't dig any deeper; this could've been let lie but I couldn't let your advice go unnoticed. I've cleaned up my side of the street, now it's your turn. I'll work on my anger issues while you work on your self-righteous lack of humility. Deal? Probably not, and that's okay. No matter how much angst there may be here, I appreciate the fact that your on-point criticisms of my formerly poor editing skills have helped me to become a better editor and happier person, learning to play nice on the cyber playground. I'm not there yet as you can see, but I am trying. Someday I hope you do the same, and I hope we never speak again. Bef3481(2) (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your previous account

Hey! I couldn't help but notice that you had a previous account that you stopped using for editing for unknown reasons, and that you made this account soon after. I was thinking about reporting you for sockpuppetry at WP:SPI but you seemed to make the connection so obvious that it was intentional. Just to clear up confusion, I was wondering what happened to your previous account. Were you unable to edit under that account anymore for some reason? Or did something else happen? Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Parsley Man, I was wondering if this would ever come up. I'm actually quite familiar with WP:SPI. So, before we go accusing me of sockpuppetry, the supremely slimiest form of deceit on Wikipedia, you should know that I informed an administrator while making the second account; the reason for it is that I had forgotten the password for the first account [Bef3481] and had not linked it to my email in a way in which I could retrieve my password, so I was very careful to make the second account in such a way where it could never be construed as sockpuppetry, hence why my account name is now [Bef3481(2)], meaning the second iteration of the same account... lol. While I don't appreciate the fact that you were ready to report me for such a serious violation, I do appreciate the diplomacy with which you've approached me about it! You're a kind person, and I'm glad you don't subscribe to the crucify-now-ask-questions-later policy; you were quite respectful about it. Anyhow, to answer your question, I made the second account because I could no longer access the first one. I appreciate the fact that you are being a diligent Wikipedia editor and inquiring about a possible violation. However, if I were to have stooped low enough to engage in sockpuppetry - which is something I would never do; as you can see in my history here, I take responsibility for my actions rather than hiding and all of my disciplinary actions are on this same account - I would've at least changed my handle a little more than adding the number 2 and parentheses. However, I also know that this is not an accusation, otherwise I'd already be reported. Thank you very much for being so kind and giving the benefit of the doubt; MANY users can learn from you! You have yourself a nice day, and happy editing! Bef3481(2) (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I was thinking the same thing; that you somehow had problems with your first account and created a new one, hence the 2 in your title. I was just wanted to make sure. Parsley Man (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bef3481(2). Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Homeland

I'm sorry, but did I do something to offend you? Your comment at the Homeland (season 6) page was very unprofessional, and really taken out of content. I have noticed that your behavior at Wikipedia has been in a attacking-way towards other users. I only commented on the fact that you added episode titles without any sources to back them up even though you claimed they were "obtained from numerous sources". To add content on Wikipedia, included adding the sources to confirm the information you have added. Without the sources for the episode titles, the titles could for all I knew had been fake. I also want to comment on your aggressive comment towards me: "I think you just found them and 'brilliantly' took credit. Looks like I was right all along. Again." This is a really inappropriate comment towards me, who were only trying to make the page good. I have not had a conflict with you, so what do you mean by that you were right again? Twotimer17 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC) @Twotimer17: Hey, listen, you're absolutely right. You have never displayed hostile behavior towards me, and the reason I said what I did is so petty that it's not even worth mentioning. The fact that you responded to me in such a civil and professional manner tells me that not only are you a good and decent person, but that you deserve a sincere apology. Please accept my apology and allow me to retract every word I said. Honestly, I tried to retract that edit comment soon after for reasons you can probably guess, but it wouldn't let me and all that would've happened would be that I undid the specific revision with which I made those comments, with the previous edit trapped in the history forever. Please disregard what I said, at the very least I'll say it was misdirected anger, and I'd like to personally commend you on your professionalism towards me.

I had an extremely rough time becoming acquainted with the internet, at no fault of my own, treated horribly, although none of that took place on Wikipedia... at least an extremely large majority did not. My resultant anger and backlash having manifested is, however, plastered all over Wikipedia through my actions and my history, for which I take full responsibility; so I especially appreciate your having given me the proverbial benefit of the doubt in your inquiry as to my bizarre and unnecessarily - almost nonsensically - hostile and passive/active aggressive comment. I really hope that we can forget this ever happened and continue to improve the page in a professional, respectful manner, in accordance with the rules, which is why you undid my revision in the first place! It is totally understandable; you were simply acting within the rules of WP in regards to references. For all you know they could have indeed been fake; it's hard for me to reach the Showtime website in my area so I was too lazy to include the actual reference and for that, I apologize as well. That is no way to conduct oneself on here, and you won't see it happen again. Thank you for your kindness and I hope you'll believe that what I'm saying is the truth. Happy editing! -Bef3481(2) Bef3481(2) (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bef3481(2). Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bef3481(2). Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)