User talk:Master106

Archives:

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Master106 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wait what? I did not edit war. Check the logs. Master106 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I did. You edit warred. Your conduct in general is concerning as well. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment from blocking admin: If a reviewer does not find my lengthy comments at ANEW on this user sufficiently dispositive (and I mean that in more than one sense, obviously) of this request, they are invited to take Master's request up and look through their contribs history. Or just this particular talk page discussion regarding the instant issue behind the block.

Master makes of themselves not just a poster child, but an entire gallery exhibition, of the characteristics of hardened edit warriors: tendentiousness, hairsplitting "logic", and total obliviousness to consensus where they are a minority of one.

To this they have now added the usual spurious logic (implied, it would seem) that as long as they didn't violate 3RR they were OK. But, as WP:EW quite clearly says, edit warring can be blockable even in situations where 3RR is not violated, and having been previously blocked twice for ... edit warring (neither block summary mentions 3RR), Master cannot seriously claim to be unaware of this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block endorsed. It's absolutely insane to me that they've continued this dispute on for another half year after I tried I gave up trying to mediate it. Horrible waste of everyone's time, Master106 included. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried for all this time to reach some kind of consensus with Yuugone/Ajeeb Praani/Someonewhoisusingtheinternet. Also 1 against 1 is not WP:1AM. The other person changed their name 3 times by the way. The only other person to say something on the original debate was the user the thread was originally about, and they were on my side. But this is a different debate entirely, I am just trying to reach a consensus to improve the article because it was pointed out to me by a guy from Dispute Resolution that the whole thing was arbitrary so, my idea was to make the page less arbitrary. So I thought maybe it could be edited so that it reflects the series instead. I made the edit, Yuugone/Ajeeb Praani/Someonewhoisusingtheinternet reverted. I made the change they wanted. He reverted again, we went to talk. Came up with changes. I made the changes. He reverted again. A week later, we went to talk. I made changes, he reverted. I finally made a revert asking him to come up with changes. Master106 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost your entire time here has been spent on excessive arguing over trivial details that don't matter much. And what do you have to show for it? Three blocks for edit warring. If you don't change your ways, the fourth one will almost certainly be indefinite in length. You're probably lucky this one wasn't. You need to learn how to let go if you're going to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let go and let the page be arbitrary or wrong? I did let go by the way, the debate is not about characters being protagonists anymore. It is about making the page look better and less arbitrary and wrong. That is all I wanted. I have been trying to collaborate. Maybe you should tell that to Yuugone/Ajeeb Praani/Someonewhoisusingtheinternet too honestly. Master106 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I've learned to let go and I'm still getting blocked" is...not the great comeback you'd like it to be. And yes, the other editor has two blocks for edit warring themselves. But that's not a defense against your block. All it means is that you're both headed for indefinite blocks if you don't change your WP:IDHT approach. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to clear up something Daniel Case said, he said "if you were right, you would have found a reliable source proving your point long ago". I did find multiple sources that claimed she was a protagonist right off the bat. And since I was looking for both terms, I found absolutely 0 sources that said she was a supporting character. The problem was Yuugone/Ajeeb Praani/Someonewhoisusingtheinternet was ignoring the sources I have found. They also had sources but none of their sources backed their claim, only relying on original research claims. I just felt like clearing that up. Master106 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Revert It?

@Someonewhoisusinginternet: I told you not to revert it to the arbitrary system and to sort it in a way you'd be happy about. Master106 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say he was injured by a bullet. Master106 (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu Sorry, misread the template. I thought you were claiming it was dubious. Master106 (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]