User talk:Zengar Zombolt

allkpop

allkpop.com is first and foremost a blog. It is a news blog, yes, but a blog. It tends to be biased, publishes rumours as fact, and has misleading stories. It really doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

I know it's difficult to find a good English sources for K-Pop, but that doesn't mean that poorer ones should be used instead. If you look at the Oh! (album) page, you'll see that an English (actual) news source is used. So it's doable. Normally speaking, though, Korean news sources are used instead on most of these pages.

I hope that clears things up. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. SKS (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You left a templated WP:COI warning on Steve Baker's talk page. In case you are not aware, it is not considered good form on WP to template the long-term users, and there are few contributors more regular or more prolific that Mr Baker. If you have a question about something he is doing, a personal note citing your specific concern is much more likely to attract an appropriate response. As an aside, one does not have a conflict of interest just because one has a personally-related interested in a topic, or no one with a heart condition could write about Cardiac care, or photographers about photography. Bielle (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I have moved your reply to my comment above here to keep the conversation coherent.)

A user's time spent on wikipedia or edit count is irrelevant to how they should be treated or how their actions should be viewed, and that you seem to think otherwise is appalling. Especially due to the nature of Aspergers syndrome, Aspies editing the article on their own special corner of Autism is undesirable to a neutral point of view.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on not templating the regulars is noted, but it is the standard, nonetheless. It is also your personal opinion that "Aspies editing the article on their own special corner of Autism is undesirable to a neutral point of view.". That might be interpreted as a prejudice you hold expressed as an attack. I do not see any failure of NPOV by Mr Baker on the talk page or in the article. As for Mr Baker's contributions to the article Asperger syndrome, as far as I can see, he added something to the article on January 31st that was not contentious, and has disagreed with you, accompanied by a coherent rationale suggesting another look at the concern again if or when the DSM is changed, in a !vote on the article's talk page. I suggest that you step back from labelling behaviours which are not in evidence. Mr Baker can certainly speak for himself should more need to be said. Bielle (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

tedder has accused and blocked me of vandalism without ever approaching me about the issue before the block or giving a specific reason beyond a nebulous citation of "abusing editing privileges". I am very confused as to why I was blocked as I have not engaged in any vandalism. I have recently giving several conflict of interest warnings to editors involved in the merge dispute at Asperger syndrome who displayed asperger-like tendencies in the arguments, but the warnings were meant to help the neutrality of the article and I do not feel they were vandalism. Even if they were, the issue could and should have been resolved by tedder bringing up the issue on my talkpage rather than blocking me out of the gate. Regardless, I have no intention to vandalize wikipedia and only wish that all sides of the arguments are heard, and so if unlocked will not be vandalizing wikipedia. Thank you, DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 23:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining this request for two reasons. Firstly you don't appear to be aware how inappropriate "giving several conflict of interest warnings to editors involved in the merge dispute at Asperger syndrome who displayed asperger-like tendencies" is. At a risk of stating the blindingly obvious: your personal diagnosis of psychological symptoms in other editors is not a valid justification for dishing out warnings. Secondly, you appear unaware of why you were blocked in the first place, which makes it difficult to ensure you will not repeat the behavior. I suggest you take a little time to review today's events, identify the area's where you think there may have been a problem and convince us that it will not be repeated. Then a block review may stand a better chance of success. If you really don't see any problem with your editing today, then I'm not convinced you are a good fit for Wikipedia. Rockpocket 00:18, 13 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

As noted below, although I didn't think my behavior was inappropriate at the time, thanks to the comments by Bielle and Ragib I now realize how inappropriate it was. In the future I will be sure to refrain from giving warnings to fellow editors based on my own personal judgement, as it is completely inappropriate, and only use them for their intended purpose of blatant policy violations. I apologize for my disruptive behavior and assure you that, now that I am aware of it, it will not happen again in the future. Secondly, my confusion about the block came from tedder's piping the reason to vandalism on the block warning on my talkpage, above. I see that the one he put on my contributions page correctly lists disruptive behavior, and now realize how disruptive my behavior today has been. If unblocked I will refrain from this disruptive behavior in the future and so I feel a block is unnecessary to stop me from being disruptive. Thank you, DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think you should take the advice above about considering your behavior and community standards here, and try another unblock in a few days. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2010 (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.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Hmm. I haven't unblocked you for vandalizing. And you've been warned by several users for today's over-the-top disruptive behavior, you obviously saw the warnings because you've removed most of them. If you want specifics, I'd be happy to provide them. tedder (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cited vandalism in the block, so I'm confused that you're now saying that isn't what you blocked me for. I'm not sure why you're calling my warnings uncivil and disruptive. Yes, I did see the questions of several users, and was in the process of addressing them when you blocked me. If they were in fact found to be disruptive/incivil after conversation with the concerned users, then I would have removed them. Regardless, I feel a 2 week block is completely over the top for this even if I am in the wrong, and also feel that you making the block is inappropriate given our past interaction.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I've cited vandalism. Please give a diff to that. Our past interaction has been based on your disruptive behavior. tedder (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You piped "abused of editing privleges" in the block you just gave me to vandalism.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the second administrator: I agree strongly with tedder. The user's contributions over the last few hours have been a continuous stream of personal attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second admin, Tryptofish and I have been involved in disputes regarding Crucifixion and its spinoff articles, along with tedder, and since the dispute he has been wikihounding me. His opinion is biased and I strongly recommed you to disregard it.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to be saying that he sees nothing wrong with what he has done. Please note that user has a history of falsely accusing tedder of having a personal involvement, when tedder is simply doing the right thing. And no, I am not hounding anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything wrong with what I did at the time, although I now realize thanks to Ragib and Bielle that it was. Disruption was not my intent. My accusations towards tedder were his use of personal attacks towards me, as well as ignoring attempts by me to talk to him about the problem (as he seems to be doing again here now that I've answered him) and my opinion that he acted with bias at Crucifixion in art. That they were false is your own personal opinion. Frankly, the very fact that you have now involved yourself in this dispute is evidence of your hounding me.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 00:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I may not be accomplishing much by this, but my involvement is the result of your attacks on me today at my own talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

"I have recently giving several conflict of interest warnings to editors involved in the merge dispute at Asperger syndrome who displayed asperger-like tendencies in the arguments, but the warnings were meant to help the neutrality of the article" -- this statement speaks for itself. You gave fake warnings to several other editors based on your imaginary claim of their physical and mental health ... that's simply wikihounding.
the issue could and should have been resolved by tedder bringing up the issue on my talkpage rather than blocking me out of the gate. -- well well well ... I brought your recent disruptive behavior to your notice in several polite comments in your talk page, but rather than responding to any messages, you blanked/reverted/undid any attempt in communicating the problems in your recent actions. So, please don't pretend that you were not informed of your disruptive behavior.
You also made a disparaging comment in a recent undo-edit summary in your talk page about sufferers of autism.

All these recent disruptive behaviors are enough for a block, and I endorse this. From your actions, it seems you are unwilling to communicate with other users, and perhaps a block will give you enough time to reflect on your recent behavior. --Ragib (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I was wrong about issuing the COI warnings, so if/when unblocked I'll take them down. Thank you for discussing this with me, Ragib (and Bielle as well, above). I removed your comments, Ragib, because I was going to respond to you on the initial talk page you responded on, Niaz. The edit summary was made out of frustration and I apologize.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my non-admin opinion, the block is appropriate. Zengar Zombolt has repeatedly removed warnings on his talk page, but not desisted in the behavior for which the warnings were issued. Removing warnings is fine, see WP:REMOVED. But, as I noted on my own talk page, User talk:TJRC#February 2010, the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Zengar Zombolt is reading these warnings, but persisting in the very activity against which he was warned. TJRC (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no time to change my behavior because I was blocked in the middle of responding to the warnings. My intent was not disruption, and a block is not necessary to prevent further disruption from me.DaiZengar ^{Smite evil} 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my NPA warning was to delete the warning, and then to purport to warn me of misuse of a warning template. This is inconsistent with any indication that you intended to change your behavior in any way. It is inconsistent with any claim that you have merely "had no time to change [your] behavior." TJRC (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your warnings to those you perceive to have Asperger's Syndrome not to edit related articles are clearly personal attacks, and blocking you from editing was quite appropriate. I did not see you warning those you perceived to be Christians against editing articles about God or Christianity. I did not see you warning artists against editing articles related to art. I did not see you warning those you perceived to be from the UK against editing articles about their monarchs or their empire. I did not see you warning diabetics against editing articles related to diabetes or carbohydrate metabolism. Instead what you have exhibited is a vendetta against those you suspect have a particular psychological condition. Any additional personal attacks should result in an indefinite block. Edison (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for The final edit from this account makes it clear this user has no intention to ever edit constructively.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 05:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]