Googinber1234
Welcome! edit
|
December 2017 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Zeena Schreck has been reverted.
Your edit here to Zeena Schreck was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/taylor-swift-is-a-satanist-clone) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Zeena Schreck have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Zeena Schreck was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/taylor-swift-is-a-satanist-clone) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
January 2018 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You don't get to override the AFD closure. Meters (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Eric Cartman has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Eric Cartman was changed by Googinber1234 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.877576 on 2018-01-18T19:02:28+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Blossom, Bubbles, and Buttercup edit
If you had any real brains, you would KNOW that a comma is needed to separate the last two items in a group. Therefore, your redirect has been reverted. And if most Americans who think the opposite are NOT stupid, Frankie Valli was NOT born in 1934!!!!! Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you're wondering who I am, I'm someone who has OCD and a good eye for grammatical errors, as well as a minor but negative obsession with The Powerpuff Girls (I hate that show). Classicalfan626 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 25 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Borderlands franchise characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
ANI edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ミラP 16:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - You are blocked for 31 hours as a result of the intimidating and harassing messages discussed at ANI. You are not in a position to issue commands to other editors. You need to stop that behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In light of your past actions surrounding fiction characters and related lists, and your previous ANI discussion and block, I'm here to ask you to stop referring to good faith efforts to follow Wikipedia policies as Vandalism. That you don't like that a list had information removed or a character was merged does not make something vandalism, which is a deliberate bad faith effort to harm the encyclopedia. If you continue, you may earn another block. -- ferret (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
January 2020 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Mass Effect characters, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: ANI edit
I'm afraid that Ferret and Izno are in the right here. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. If a reliable source does not exist for a piece of info, we generally don't include it. The same goes for lists of of characters. If we don't have a source that confirms that those characters exist and who they are, we can't include it. Simply listing the characters becasue you've played one of the games represents original research, which is not allowed, because it is not verifiable. Using Fandom or Wikia is not a reliable source, as the content is user-generated. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the above is exactly correct. You need to change your approach immediately. Stop trying to “report” ferret and Izno. Not only are they not doing anything wrong, but you are the one in the wrong with handling this situation. Please work with them to learn what you are doing wrong. If you don’t stop acting so combative with them, your account is going to receive another block. Please, just place nice, and try to learn how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to say this, loud and clear, once and only once: YOUR POLICIES ARE WRONG. I see them, read them in full, and my response is an unequivocal, emphatic "NO". Stop abusively enforcing them, and stop trying to convince me that these absurd standards are to be accepted; you will accomplish nothing in doing so other than making me increasingly angry. Googinber1234 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Here’s the thing - you’re free to disagree with the policies. But as long as they are in effect, you must follow them. If you don’t like them, make a detailed proposal on how change them. If you get a consensus to change, great, edit accordingly. But until then, follow the current rules. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I am giving the instruction of how to change them right now; I have been this whole time. Googinber1234 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Screaming that the policies are wrong doesn't mean that they are wrong, and it won't cause them to get changed. Reyk YO! 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- You can’t possibly think that berating two editors separately on their talk pages is the right way to go about changing the rules for the entire website. Comments like that make me concerned you aren’t really ready to be editing Wikipedia at all... Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
January 2020 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)I don't have patience for this kind of disruption any more. Given that you have no interest in following our policies, you've been blocked indefinitely. Once you convince an admin that you understand our policies and are willing to follow them, you can be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was about to do the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Googinber1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is incorrect. I absolutely AM here to help build the encyclopedia; my current activity was contribution of on-topic, correct information which was being aggressively removed for no good reason, provoking any behavior on my end that may have been out of line here. This hideous abusive enforcement of broken policies is a huge site-wide problem that I would very much like to draw wide attention to remedying. Googinber1234 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
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 is fundamentally false. They directly, clearly, and repeatedly gave you a reason for the deletion of your content. You didn’t add a source to verify it. You were not following some of the most basic of policy. Comments like this will never get your account unblocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Not having a "reliable source"(sic) for undisputed factual information is not a reason to remove it. Stop harassing me. Googinber1234 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
unblock discussion edit
I'll return with a more itemized explanation. I'm a slow typer, but in essence, you are quite wrong on a number of points, Sorry I cannot be more helpful.-- Deepfriedokra 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to say this, loud and clear, once and only once: YOUR POLICIES ARE WRONG. I see them, read them in full, and my response is an unequivocal, emphatic "NO". Stop abusively enforcing them, and stop trying to convince me that these absurd standards are to be accepted; you will accomplish nothing in doing so other than making me increasingly angry. I'm sorry, but we are not responsible for your anger. As has already been said, if you cannot abide by our rules, you may not edit here. I don't agree with all of them either. I follow them because I must.-- Deepfriedokra 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose it's meaningless to remind you of this as you refuse to comply. SMDH.
- WP:RS ia a guideline. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy. It is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.. To edit here you must at least try to follow it. Your outbursts on this talk page and against other users in other places are at odds with this essential policy. As you have already been told, You are not in a position to issue commands to other editors. You need to stop that behavior.. This is from the prior ANI discussion that lead to your block earlier. Again, and I mean this, as Ferret said I'm here to ask you to stop referring to good faith efforts to follow Wikipedia policies as Vandalism. It is incivil.
- Which brings us to recalcitrance. Anyone can have a bad day, speak harshly and rashly, act in an unbecoming manner. I'm sorry, but you must address this issue to be unblocked.
- When people labor to explain how we do things and to help you edit more constructively, it is not harassment.
- One more thing. I am giving the instruction of how to change them right now; I have been this whole time. To change a policy or guideline requires a WP:consensus building discussion to do so. It will never be accomplished by shouting "you're wrong." Th venues for these discussions can be on the policy/guideline talk page or at the Wikipedia:Village_pump. When in a dispute with other editors, seek WP:dispute resolution. At all times, one must remain polite. "Please" and "thank you" go a long way toward building a collaborative work environment.-- Deepfriedokra 04:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Googinber1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I acknowledge that my brazen statements against larger policies were out of line and will not repeat them in the future, so long as the destructive misuse of the policies in question that made me feel provoked to do so don't persist. I furthermore ask at this time how I should instead go about handling such actions when I encounter them.
Decline reason:
No. This is nowhere near close to an acceptable unblock request. You don't get to set conditions like this. I suggest taking no less than six months off, then applying under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to demonstrate a completely different approach, if you wish to be unblocked. At the moment, all you are doing is showing conclusively that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Yamla (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
Googinber1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Stop insinuating that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia"; I was absolutely trying to help build an encyclopedia with the correct edits that were being repeatedly reverted leading to the incidents that provoked the current situation. In the previous response, you also didn't suggest what I actually should be doing as an approach to reasoning this out instead of how my previous message read.
Decline reason:
Not actually an unblock request. El_C 05:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
Welp, FWIW, the whole "YOUR POLICIES ARE WRONG " stance is a huge obstacle to unblocking you.The subtext of "so long as the destructive misuse of the policies in question that made me feel provoked to do so don't persist" is that you want to feel free to disregard the policies and guidelines the rest of us follow. If that is the case, then there is no point to unblocking you. Perhaps you missed the link to WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION. When there is a disagreement as to how to edit a page, we discuss changes and sourcing on the article talk page, and then follow the steps at wp:dispute resolution. When one feels "provoked" or otherwise unable to maintain civility and decorum, the best course of action is to step away until one regains one's composure. -- Deepfriedokra 05:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
> "The subtext of "so long as the destructive misuse of the policies in question that made me feel provoked to do so don't persist" is that you want to feel free to disregard the policies and guidelines the rest of us follow."
That is saying nothing about disregarding policies; I am asking about how I should go about dealing with such actions that deliberately misuse policies as an excuse for vandalism and removal of information as those which provoked me to ranting in this incident. That is a legitimate and relevant question. Googinber1234 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Googinber1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is again acknowledging my missteps with the intention to use more correct means of dealing with the deliberate obstruction of encyclopedic information in any future encounters with it, again imploring for more specific guidance on how to go about those correct means.
Decline reason:
You continued the same line of reasoning that led to your block in the first place with the comment about "deliberate obstruction". At this point, I'm revoking talk page access as it's clear you are not listening to anything anyone is telling you. I would walk away from 6 months, then post a request at WP:UTRS to see if your talk page access at the least can be reinstated to request your account back. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
- You're still calling other peoples' actions "vandalism", and "deliberate misuse of policies", and "deliberate obstruction". They weren't. They were quite correct and perfectly in line with our policies, most importantly verifiability. You need to make your peace with the fact that the people you've been yelling at objectively haven't done anything wrong. Your position seems to be that the content polices are bad and wrong, that the people upholding them are evil vandals, and that you'll graciously (but unconvincingly) agree to stop screaming abuse at people so long as they stop being so uppity about proper encyclopedia maintenance. There's no way you're getting unblocked as long as that's your position. You'll sooner lose talk page access entirely. Reyk YO! 11:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
You're mistaken; the users in question were removing entire characters (major ones) from an article specifically dedicated to being a list of characters from the series in question; said characters' names redirect to the article, which according to what these users want does not include them at all. Googinber1234 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)