User talk:Shadow Blaze

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).

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

Request reason:

All of my edits were done for valid reasons: the ones in Star Wars Galactic BattleGrounds were to provide descriptions for the normal campaigns because there were descriptions for the Expansion Pack Campaigns (in fact, almost the whole page is focused on the Expansion Pack when the page is supposed to be about the original). The one in someones page was a picture that I have seen somewhere else before, and because there was no credit to the original creators of that image, it was therefore considered stolen and so I deleted it. The one on his talk page was a request to that person because he considered everything I wrote in the article above as complete vandalism, and I spent a long time writing what I did, and that was deleted without any reason what so ever. The ones on this page (which people use as evidence against me, see below) was because they were unfair claims of vandalism (and in that term is vandalism in itself to my page) so I had the right to edit it in the way I saw fit, considering it was my own Page, and the owners of pages are allowed to reply to them, that was my reply, granted it wasn't the correct way to reply, so I apologise. So really, the only reason for this ban was because of the edit I made on my own talk page, and I apologised for that, I am just sometimes so annoyed when people inproperly accuse me of something I had reasons to do or never did in the first place, I have apologised for my part, can you please grant the same for me?

Decline reason:

Still don't realize the what you did, declining. If you post another unblock request, I will protect the page. — MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 3 May 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I never did anything and I was blocked directly as an account

Decline reason:

You make edits like this and have the gall to say you didn't do anything? — Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (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.

Response to decline

That is because something one of you claimed adding campaign descriptions for Galactic Battlegrounds, which I did because there were descriptions for the campaigns in the Expansion Pack (look at the article for proof), was vadalism, so I decided to show this person what true Vandalism is. And if editing things on Wikipedia is so strict that I get banned for just editing something, no matter if it is bad or not, and as I have seen you ban about 100 people a day, that really shows evidence of incompetence or jealousy. Really if anyone should be banned, its those that have no idea what Vandalism is. In other words, you admins. And I really do not care if you ban me now, I use to like Wikipedia before I realised how idiotic the system is. And banning me from editing my own talk page because of what I wrote here would only prove it further that you ban people who you just don't like.

"I decided to show this person what true Vandalism is". So, in the real world, if someone accuses you of beating them up and you go and beat them up "to show them what true assault is", you should be acquitted? By your logic, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out it was a picture, which I actually saw as concept art in a book, so the picture was actually stolen with no details of where the picture was, so no I did put a wrong wording to that. Basically, the true vandalism was his picture, which I deleted, so I took care of the true vandalism, not I shown him what it is by butchering his talk page, the talk page is for talking after all, I wanted him to stop reverting my 'constructive edits to wikipedia and kindly asked him too. The picture I found afterwards and saw it as copyright infringement. Unless you defend the true vandals and ban those who defend themselves? Shadow Blaze (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Shadow Blaze[reply]

And Lastly, I wrote something on Riana's talk page about what he wrote about my editing of Battlegrounds, and it was deleted, in fact someone else reverted what I edited on my comment on his talk page beforehand (which was changing the title from Liar! to Battlegrounds for the valid reason that the latter title made more sense) even though it was something I originally wrote in the first place, because it was apparently vandalism. This is my proof of incompetence on your part.

Everything you have banned me for was your own incompetence, so theoretically, Riana should be banned for technically vandalising my Talk page with claims of vandalism, and my indefinate banner for not realising that and banning me without a solid foundational evidence. And you for also putting the blame on me, in other words, also not realising that.

Seriously, you are the most incompetant admins I have seen on ANY site I have been on, and I have been to sites which have admins possibly half your age (depending how old you are).

Consider how you look to someone else. You reacted in a disruptive manner to a content dispute. Instead of trying to work it out with the other user, you got mad about the vandalism warnings and reacted angrily. You fail completely to assume good faith when Riana gave you vandalism warnings. Then you vandalized his page with implied personal attacks. Then, when blocked, you lamely attempt to justify your inexcusable actions (You haven't even apologized, I note). If this is how you handle this sort of thing after only a few edits, which is not how we want people to do it, you're clearly not going to play well with others, which is the Wikipedia way.

I will concede that maybe you shouldn't have been blocked as a vandal, but your disruptive editing is certainly adequately demonstrated enough to justify an indefinite block before you get into more of these scrapes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Consider how you look to someone else. You reacted in a disruptive manner to a content dispute."Disruptive? it was a picture. Which I already explained before, I had my reasons to delete it, unless your talking about Battlegrounds, which I already mentioned before was justified as an ok addition because it would otherwise be incomplete. And he deleted it with an invalid excuse which he never really proved. "Instead of trying to work it out with the other user, you got mad about the vandalism warnings and reacted angrily." When did I act angrily, you assume deleting a possibly stolen picture is revenge? I had a reason to delete it, but no because he is an admin, anything he does is acceptable. "If this is how you handle this sort of thing after only a few edits, which is not how we want people to do it, you're clearly not going to play well with others, which is the Wikipedia way" So by this logic I am not allowed to edit wikipedia regardless of the fact there is an edit button? "

I will concede that maybe you shouldn't have been blocked as a vandal, but your disruptive editing is certainly adequately demonstrated enough to justify an indefinite block before you get into more of these scrapes. " See? Here you basically prove that you just ban based on assumptions, you think that because I post on a talk page, a talk page acceptable post, that I am getting into a scrape with an admin. I was ok with wikipedia until I realised until I noticed how annoyingly strict people are with edits, I have never had an edit that stays long enough except select additions, regardless that I edit things to correct them, not vandalise them (an example would be Simpsons series 1 DVDs, which I corrected because the wrong episodes were in the wrong sections) and look where correcting things has left me, banned from editing anything other than my own talk page. Do you think that is fair? Shadow Blaze (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Shadow Blaze[reply]

And actually read all of the above, and think about it before writing a responce.

PS: I would apreciate if what I wrote is not deleted (and I have saved it to a document just in case your low enough to think about it)

Again, you demonstrate that you can't assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is how Admins talk to people who are defending themselves because of an unfair ban, then I really cant be bothered to even contribute on this reagardless that I had such interesting things to write (even though they would probably get deleted for onw pathetic reason or another). And apparently on Wikipedia, you have completely disobeyed your own code by discouraging me from contributing, and with that last assumption has made it even less likely I would ever return. Shadow Blaze (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Shadow Blaze.[reply]

Shadow Blaze (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Shadow Blaze[reply]

And another thing

Actually another thing I found interesting is the irony of the one who has declined my request. I read your page and found a reward about Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and read all the way down to a point where it says "Avoid using bans as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you ban him or her." and yet, I was banned from editing outside my talk page before anyone even considers talking to me. And you decline my request, the one given a reward "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar"? I am even more convinced at how badly wikipedia is run, because you all take the matter in to your own opinions of me instead of sticking to the wikipedia guidelines that you admins should be following. And it took someone you banned to figure that out and actually present you with your own information.

Shadow Blaze (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Shadow Blaze[reply]

As noted above, you failed completely to acknowledge your disruptive conduct. WP:BITE does not mean you get a free pass for so much unpleasantness. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, you admit you assume that I am unpleasant, because of one thing I edited with a valid reason. You admins are actually very bad at defending yourselves when someone questions your competance. You treat users who defend themselves bad out of assumption, you ban out of assumptions rather then fact, and you exagerate to prove a point (unpleasant because of one little edit comes to mind).

Further unblock requests

Please email further unblock requests to "unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org". MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this user can be given another chance, WP:AGF has not been snapped. (It would be nice if he apologised). I disagree with leaving the discussion off-wiki. Is there no appropriate specific forum? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"granted it wasn't the correct way to reply, so I apologise" I already apologised in my second request, as you can see. Shadow Blaze (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]