User talk:Thewtfchronicles

ANI

Hello, Thewtfchronicles. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at iCarly. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 09:49, 13 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

What the hell are you talking about? There wasn't any edit warring going on there.

Decline reason:

Yes, it was edit warring. You were repeatedly reverting the same content back into the article. Please work such things out through discussion instead of back and forth reverting in the future. ^Chillum 15:34, 13 November 2009 (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.

Thewtfchronicles (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continued your problematic reverting/edit-warring despite just coming off a block ~~for the same~~, and being warned not to repeat that behaviour in this thread at WP:ANI. Diffs: [1], [2], [3]. EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting is not "problematic" when its highly justifiable. The block I came off of was not even for reverting or edit warring. TWO reverts does not make it edit warring, especially when there had been a talk page discussion then reverting was halted by both of us. Neither of us deserve a block. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my above. However, reverting is only justifiable for obvious vandalism or as a last resort (see WP:REVERT for more information. Also note that three reverts is not an entitlement; the spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR applies. EyeSerene^talk 10:47, 13 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. TWO reverts happened and there was talk page action, then someone else added the unneeded content back in.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, not a 3RR violation. Please address the reason for the block if you wish to request another unblock. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 22:18, 13 November 2009 (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.

Two reverts that then ended in talk page discussion, though it was minimal is not an edit war. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for reverting the re-addition of unneeded content from an article (twice). Two reverts then a talk page discussion that ended up in neither editors "disrupting" further does not make it an edit war. I find the blocking admin to be abusing their powers by throwing out blocks in the most minor of situations. Also, look at This edit. Isn't that a little iffy that that editor tried to expand upon the "edit war" you speak of? In such a case, he would too be apart of this "edit war" and therefore should have been blocked as well. See? Just doesn't work. My block should be revoked because it has not been justifiably given. No edit warring occurred on iCarly.

Decline reason:

As has been pointed out WP:3RR is not a license to revert up to three times if you're in a content dispute. And despite your claim of you only reverting twice, as linked above in addition to the page history, you reverted three times the same section before trying to discuss it on the talk page. I would suggest reading the guide on appealing blocks. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Instead you mainly focused on what other people have done. Q ^{T C} 07:42, 14 November 2009 (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.

Thewtfchronicles (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When what other users have done is highly relevant, why exclude such details? TWO reverts happened - one before the talk page, and one afterwards. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request should address what you have done, and how you understand what you did wrong. Furthermore:

00:54, November 13, 2009 Thewtfchronicles (talk | contribs | block) (15,907 bytes) (→Broadcast history: this section is irrelevant as it's covered in the infobox)

01:16, November 13, 2009 Thewtfchronicles (talk | contribs | block) (15,907 bytes) (Undid revision 325576855 by Aoi (talk)rv, the section is NOT needed)

01:45, November 13, 2009 Thewtfchronicles (talk | contribs | block) (15,907 bytes) (Undid revision 325578814 by Aoi (talk)) (undo)

01:46, November 13, 2009 Thewtfchronicles (talk | contribs | block) (44,444 bytes) (→Broadcast history (removed section)) (undo)

That's three reversions then your talk page edit. Q ^{T C} 08:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one there isn't a revert. Pay attention to what you're doing or don't be involved at all. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the definition of revert: Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits. You undid the effects of one or more edits by removing that section, that counts as a revert. Happy to help. Q ^{T C} 08:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a separate edit that removed a pointless section. Two reverts then occurred, one of which was after the talk page discussion. This is a completely unjust and false block. There is no reason whatsoever why I should be blocked currently. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get why you are blocked now, perhaps you should be blocked indefinitely now to prevent further disruption from you 'failing to understand' something else. —Ed (talk • contribs) 08:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not get why I was blocked over reverting an edit TWO times that was placing unneeded content back in. What this "something else" is is beyond me. Care to inform me? Thewtfchronicles (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be unable to understand is that you aren't entitled to three reverts. Whether you made 2 or 3 is irrelevant. What you also seem to be unable to comprehend is that "being right" is irrelevant in any edit war. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to fucking comprehend is that IT WAS NOT AN EDIT WAR. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read WP:EW and all of the other policies that I and several others have suggested. I'd hate to see you get an indef-block because you refuse to read, understand, and abide by the policies...but that seems to be the way you're headed. Frmatt (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 24 hours onto the block so that you have sufficient time to review policy, as suggested above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I think I will report you for admin power abuse. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SarekOfVulcan's block extension. When nine separate editors have posted here disagreeing with your interpretation of your actions, I think you need to consider the possibility that your understanding of both Wikipedia policy and community standards is faulty. You clearly haven't read WP:REVERT as requested; you don't seem to grasp that a revert is defined as "undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors." You made three - not two - of these. By continually reverting, you were also repeatedly overriding another's contributions, which is the definition of edit-warring. It's your prerogative to continue to argue that black is white, just as it's our prerogative to ensure you don't edit Wikipedia until you can follow the same standards as the rest of us. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm very concerned for you. You seem to be a person who wants to help with the encyclopedia, and means well, and I don't think you realize how much danger you're in of being blocked forever. Wikipedia has two rules - no edit-warring and work with consensus- that you don't seem to understand, and I think that's why you keep breaking them. Following those rules better would mean not only that you stop getting warned and blocked, but also that you get less angry. Here's how it works. (1) You make an edit. Yay! (2) Someone undoes that edit, explaining why. (3) Now that you know that others disagree, you stop and discuss what you want to do on the article talk page. You don't restore the edit yet- instead, you explain what you're trying to do on the talk page, and wait until it's clear that most other users agree with you that it should be done. (4) AFTER you can see that most users agree with you, THEN you put the edit back. You always want to avoid going back-and-forth on an article, even for a little while, because it doesn't accomplish anything except making you both angrier and irritating other users. And you always want to make sure that other users agree with you, because Wikipedia works by people working together. What I just described is the Wikipedia way of doing things. You've only been at Wikipedia for a few weeks, and you've been blocked three times for not editing in the Wikipedia way. But when I read your talk page, it seems like it isn't that you're intentionally breaking the rules- it seems that you don't understand what the rules are, or else you don't believe that the rules really exist. And you seem to get very, very angry (as in the giant letters and cursing above) at anyone who tries to explain the rules to you. At this point, any block you get might be the one that lasts forever, because people are starting to get tired of trying to convince you to follow the rules. There's jut two links in this message: edit-warring and consensus. You would be really smart to read them very carefully, and make sure you really understand them, before you make any more edits at Wikipedia. So far, you've gotten short blocks because you are a new user, but at this point, any administrator who sees your block log is likely to make your next block long, very long, or permanent. And I'd hate to see that happen to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way as FisherQueen. It is obvious you have great intentions, but being right is not what matters 100% of the time. It also isn't neccessary to be right immediately. Sometimes you can let things settle for a little while until you can reach consensus. I know you are interested in CSD, I think you should reread WP:CSD and also take a look at WP:WIHSD which will greatly improve your tagging. I hope you see that we all want to help and sadly I agree with the additional 24 hours that SarekofVulcan applied and I think you should use that time to calm time, get smart on policies, and come back with an attitude ready to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

Per the CheckUser result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CNGLITCHINFO, I have extended your block to indefinite, as it has been confirmed that the same person behind CNGLITCHINFO has used this account in a way to circumvent the community's guidelines and policies. Regards, MuZemike 17:02, 16 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

What the fucking hell are you talking about? First off, I was wrongly accused of vandalism then given no chance to defend myself, making me wonder what the point of the section for that is. This is exactly what I mean by abusive admin powers - It's clear it's a "ooh, i like this editor, but oh no, this guy, i don't like him, i'll just give him blocks for crap he didn't do, sure, he's a valuable contributor, but I just don't like the guy, fuck him" This is EXACTLY why so many people hate Wikipedia. Because they think of it as a dictatorship. Which it appears it is.

Decline reason:

(edit conflict) I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block. Please explain how Brandon's checkuser findings are wrong. NW (Talk) 03:35, 17 November 2009 (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.

Funny, I was thinking, when I saw this checkuser result, of how embarrassed I was. Because I had already declined one of your unblock requests as User:Tdinoahfan, and the writing style is so similar that I feel like I should have recognized that you were the same person and blocked you weeks ago. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings are hurt by your previous edit. Didn't I try hard to help you, without even knowing you were the same person? And doesn't the fact that, when no one knew you were the same person, you were still getting in trouble for exactly the same things, indicate that the problem was that you really were not following the rules? Did you ever even try to read and understand the rules, or did you just ignore everything we said to try to help? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I am a non admin with no authority or extra tools on Wikipedia at all and I am 100% supportive of the original block. Your failure to read, comprehend, and comply with the CSD rules as well as 3RR rules and your behavior that you can ignore them constitutes vandalism that is harmful to the project. I still think you were making good faith edits, but you have not in good faith tried to improve upon yourself and your edits. If I were an admin, I likily would have made the very same decision after so many warnings on your user talk page. Please do not accuse the admins involved of abusing their powers after they tried to help you. I wish you good luck and I am sorry that your experience on Wikipedia has turned out so sourly.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of programs broadcast by Disney XD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of programs broadcast by Disney XD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney XD until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]