User talk:Shaz0t

An Droichead Beag

{{helpme}} Please move User:Shaz0t/sandbox to An Droichead Beag.

It's a stub; it's notable, it has refs, I know what I'm doing and - forgive me please - I don't wanna wait weeks for 'articles for creation'.

Stub to be expanded; plenty of RS.

Thx. Shaz0t (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The helpme template is not for requesting review and/or moves of articles. If you want it moved, wait until you are autoconfirmed and move it yourself, and risk it being deleted for either CSD no context or other reasons, or go through AfC. I can say that this article wouldn't be accepted in AfC most likely because it is only one/two sentences of text. Expand it a little more and it should have no problem; just remember WP:GNG and WP:RS for everything. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please 'autoconfirm' me so I can perform the above move, kthx. Shaz0t (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and/or just move it. ta) Shaz0t (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin-help template is not for requesting permissions or for asking for articles to be moved. You can request autoconfirmed permission at WP:RFP/C. You could get your article in the queue at Articles for Creation or request a move at WP:RM. -- Dianna (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? "If you require help in regards to blocking, deleting, protecting, or administrative matters, you can use {{admin help}}". I needed an admin to grant a permission... after failing to get a request to simply move a valid page... oh, never mind; I give up.

Move that page live if you want, one day; I give in. I tried. A new user, I made a valid page - actually referenced! How many % do that - maybe 1% if you're lucky? And so, I asked for help, and... I didn't get any. Wikipedia is so incredibly hostile to new users, it really is disappearing up its own bottom. I do not feel welcome. I simply spoke to someone today about a pub, found no article, and wrote one; all in accord to polioy and everything; and... was treated like crap. Shaz0t (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which page do you need moved? — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the top of this section; User:Shaz0t/sandbox to An Droichead Beag. Shaz0t (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you ever need help, you can leave me a message :) — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edits

Hey Shaz. Just wanted to let you know I created some additional Request Edit Templates a while back. Not that it's important they're used (I don't mean to be a pest about it), but there are now decline and accept templates similar to AfC if you find them handy. For example, there's {{request edit|D|ADV}} to decline promotional requests. Corporate 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Shaz0t. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You are new, so let me help you understand. I am commenting at ANI, not because I am bored, but because I am an administrator with over 6 years of editing and dispute mediation experience and a desire to resolve the issue. ANI stands for "Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents". Note the possessive in "Administrator's" It is my job to be there and help diffuse and solve problems. Admins are selected to do exactly this, by the community. My polite but direct comment to you was because I have no desire in egging the parties on, and instead solving the problem. If needed, I will block editors, but my goal is always to find a solution that doesn't require blocking. Antagonizing a situation makes others act out as well, and can lead to editors themselves getting blocked. If you have information that is helpful, it is welcome, but ANI is an admin board, and not the place to just pop off comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, admins are not 'special'. It's unfortunate that that is not the reality, and you clearly consider yourself to have special dispensations on forums such as AN/I, and feel the need to weild your mighty experience. You have no idea what my experience level is, and should not judge. I know it is hard to see from the inside, but you might try to reverse the scenario and wonder what'd happen if your comments were from an IP, and mine from an admin. Shaz0t (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your goal should not be "find a solution that doesn't require blocking"; it should be to find the solution that causes the least disruption to the project. Just sayin'. Shaz0t (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to editing articles, I have zero authority, I am the same as any other editor. At an admin board, admin are expected to clerk the boards. Just as editors can't move cases or close archives at WP:SPI, and I can't make format changes at WP:ARB because I'm not an Arb clerk, the Admin boards are administered by admin for the purpose of solving problems. The community grants us the tools to protect pages, block editors and delete material specifically for the purpose of using it in areas like this. All input that is helpful is welcome. Input that only antagonizes the situation is not. It is literally our job to handle problems at the Admin boards, allowing any input from the community that is constructive. It isn't an entertainment venue, it is an incident board. As to my goals, you are welcome to run for admin and use your own judgement, or ask any admin to review mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, there you go again; "or ask any admin to review mine" - what's so very special about admins? Show me a policy saying admins views have more weight than any other user, please. Shaz0t (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an argument here, but admin can issue sanctions, where non-admin can not. Admin aren't better than, they are simply authorized to do things on behalf of the community, like block users, protect pages, etc. Things that aren't "editing". Don't take my word for it, as your fellow non-admin about me or this perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might try reading Wikipedia:Administrators as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"admin can issue sanctions, where non-admin can not" - incorrect. Anyone can issue a sanction. Admins can enforce it. And that's really important to remember. Shaz0t (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz0t, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Shaz0t! 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! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously not your first time around the block...

You want to tell us what your previous account was? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Not that there's anything wrong in it; I just choose not to. That shouldn't be a problem, in theory. In practice, it probably means there will be some half-assed reason to block me, but meh; what can you do? I'm not blocked or banned. That's all that matters (in that wonderful place called 'theory') Shaz0t (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't know if you weren't blocked or banned unless we know who you are -- and we'll find out if you keep deleting huge blocks of easily verifiable material on bullshit grounds, because I'll take it to the noticeboards, and in the ensuing discussion it will all come out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's put your unfounded allegations up against core policy. Shaz0t (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN was never intended to be a weapon used to decimate articles of prosaic information which is easily verifiable and neither contentious nor controversial. Your using it that way damages the encyclopedia -- continue to do so at your own risk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read it?

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[1]

Shaz0t (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see AN/I at [2] Beyond My Ken (talk)

Additionally, to help make Beyond My Ken's case, all of the published material is verifiable with the Grand Comics Database link in the EL. Could that go as a few footnotes rather than an EL? Absolutely — which is a lot different from summarily removing material that is referenced in the EL. A cite tag would have been proper process.

And people change identities because they've behaved badly or been sanctioned in the past Fellow editors have a right to know about your pattern of behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the fuck do you think I "behaved badly or been sanctioned in the past"? Shaz0t (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, of course, the publications could be ref'd to a publisher, sure; that'd help sort the article out. Shaz0t (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Oh, wait; is Grand Comics Database really RS? It sounds a bit tertiary? Shaz0t (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm strongly opposed to the use of multiple accounts, and think they are inherently disruptive. I'm inclined to think Beyond My Ken is right, but, without evidence, there's nothing for anyone to act on. No, stating the obvious doesn't constitute a personal attack: you have used other accounts and your edits do seem to have some kind of dispute-edged flavour to them. If policy permitted, I'd block for the use of an alternate account. It doesn't, so, unless someone can point to an actual sockmaster, you are safe from that. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, approves of your use of this account.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Love

Reversions reverted again and reported again.

A) I am not new to Wikipedia I have been editing articles for over ten years now.

B) I am an accomplished music and entertainment author currently 72 years old and recently celebrated by 50th year in the field.

C) I find it effronterous to come back after working on a page for two days straight to find it all erased by people who were either A) not born when the events took place or B) not having been to either one or both as I have been.

D) Numerous administrative forums within Wikipedia state that any article heretofore deemed as dry and stodgy-sounding may be rewritten into a more `chatty' style in order to appeal to a wider audience.

The page in question has already been reported to the administration for Page Protection as well as under Edit Wars.

Further interference will also be reverted and reported as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Who are you? And what page is this about? Shaz0t (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saluts

Hi. I have seen the big thread at ANI and I would like to know more about you. I am not asking you to reveal your previous identity; it is personal information, in my opinion. I just have seen you for some days and would like to talk to you, if you let me. Regards. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What about? Shaz0t (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mostly to know you better, friendship and stuff, you know ;) — Ṟ Ṉ™ 04:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Canadians

You blanked almost 30k worth of material, at least some of which appears to be referenced. This is not wise, and I have reverted your edit. Please be more discriminating in your removal of material. LadyofShalott 03:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny. It's apparent that you are using this account to perform controversial edits without allowing them to be tied to your main account. This violates WP:ILLEGIT. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 04:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you email a trusted admin to confirm with them that your old account was not blocked or left under a cloud or any of that. That would be the best method to rectifying this. Silver seren^C 04:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't matter. Even if his behaviour with the other account is impeccable, this one would be subject to a block. Even more so, in fact, as it would be considered a case of WP:BADHAND.—Kww(talk) 04:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see edits such as [3] being done good faith when a spot check of the references cited inline there (The Guardian, Vanity Fair) verifies most of the material. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that they were not made in good faith, and that Shaz0t's entire purpose here is to harm the encyclopedia by using our policies as weapons against us. I don't know if the motivation is simply to fuck with "the man" (as Wikipedia has become, as the primary source of online information), the furtherance of anarchy, or an adolescent thrill with messing around with important shit, but it would behoove us to take editors such as this into our consideration as we discuss the future of Wikipedia, i.e. how can we continue to be as open as possible ("the encyclopedia that anyone can edit") and still deal effectively with those people who, for whatever reason, want to screw us over. I think this will require admins and experienced editors to become less naive about the dangers confronting us, and to recognize that WP:AGF must be an ideal and cannot be an absolute. In addition, the suspicions and concerns of long-time editors need to be taken more seriously, and our restrictions on CU investigations must be loosened. In short, we are no longer in the early idealistic period of our development, we have passed into middle-age and the hard realities of life -- and this needs to be reflected in our policies, and in the attitudes of our admin corps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaz0t for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]