User talk:128.104.truth

Welcome to my Talk page! If you have any comments or questions, send them here. Below is my archive pages.

Archives

2009

Red Hulk

Please explain what is unnecessary about the line you have now twice removed from this article. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see that commment in the lead of any other comic book character article because it is an assumed statement when there is an entire section about that stuff. 128.104.truth (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do see it in other articles...but oh well. Also, WP:MOSBOLD explains what bold is used for. Your changes to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World don't appear to apply here. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my mistake on Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It is in other articles like that? Give me some examples where it is so poorly articulated in the lead of a comic book article. (I think you'll have a hard time finding examples where it is prominently in the lead and well articulated.) 128.104.truth (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your problem that it's poorly articulated, or that it's there in the first place? The lead is intended to be a summary of the important aspects of the subject. There being an entire section on it makes the case for including it in the lead stronger, not weaker. I'm not going to waste time reverting, or looking for multiple examples. The 2 character articles I did look at, Hulk and Superman, both had some sort of commentary in the lead about it. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention before that part of what I removed was incorrect. There is no mention of him as a toy in the In other media section. 128.104.truth (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B Gastineau

Abortion comment, this is controversial content about a living person, please read WP:BLP and if you still think it should be inserted please first discuss and seek support on the talkpage here Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment in support. Happy? --Spidey104^contribs 14:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about including the information, but I'm probably going to catch some (undeserved) flack for my recent revision. I'm not going to bother myself with fighting those arseholes (yes, I am referring to Dayewalker, Onorem, and Off2riorob) again anytime soon. I wish you luck, but the headache they cause is not worth it to me. Sorry. --Spidey104^contribs 01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

There is no consensus to insert this disputed controversial content , do not replace it without a clear suppot on the BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see what the consensus is, ask an uninvolved administrator to comment where consensus is, consensus is not a 3 2 vote. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting other users comment and incivility note

Calling other editors liars in edit summaries in not applying good faith, please keep civil and comment about content and not contributors, also unless editors comment defame or demean living people and such like do not alter or touch other editors comments at all, a polite note that, hey, the comment is not in the article is plenty, altering or removing my comment like that with the accusatory edit summary is against policy and please don't continue along this path. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only said it was a lie because it was. You said the content was in the article, but the content was not in the article. Furthermore, it was not accusatory, it was factual. I see now that I should have striked the comment out instead of deleting it; for that I am sorry. 128.104.truth (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the comment would have also been the wrong way to handle it. There are very few times when you're going to want to edit another person's comments at all. It's safest and easiest just to reply with what you think is incorrect about their statement. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brittny Gastineau ‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Onorem ♠Dil 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of undo led me to believe that you had reverted the material back in. My mistake. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learned my lesson about the three-revert rule, so I will not be anywhere near violating that ever again. I apologize for the incorrect edit summary, but may this be a lesson to you that you should look closer in the future. 128.104.truth (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

There's really no need to come back and reopen a thread that's been idle for five days with a comment that seems only there to antagonize [1]. That BLP thread is obviously finished, it's been quiet for five days and had nothing to do with the actual subject of the discussion for some time before that. Please just let that one end. Dayewalker (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have responded sooner, but if you'll notice I had been away for a while. Also, you might want to talk to Pinkadelic about not being antagonizing. I'm not saying I haven't been, but you can't reasonably claim I've been the only one. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From last time

What part of the previous situation do you fail to accept? Please do not replace what was rejected at the WP:BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. What made you ever think I accepted it? You never presented a reasonable argument for not including it. 128.104.truth (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are continually adding it and multiple users are removing it and you continue even after it was opposed at the blp noticeboard, you are basically edit warring disputed content into a blp. Please take this as a warning,I will report you if you add it again and I will request an edit restriction for you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with Rob on this one. It appears that you only edit sporadically. That does not exempt you from respecting consensus or the BLP policy. Please don't insert the material into the article again, the next step is admin intervention and a block or topic ban. Dayewalker (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow me round reverting my edits again I will report you for that. You are also following user Daywalker around reverting his edits, please stop this stalking of contributors you are in dispute with and your enlarging the issue to multiple articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of mindlessly reverting my edits because you don't like some edits I have made, you should examine if my edits are worthwhile. I may have reverted your edits, but that is because you are violating some of the policies you like to enforce. You should know better than to remove sourced material. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can source a great many things that simply don't belong in an article. Edit-warring and engaging in the same activities that got you blocked before isn't going to do you any favours. KaySL ^talk 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

Do me a favor: go to Abortion and read up on "therapeutic" vs. "elective" vs. "spontaneous". All three are distinct. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice / Stalking

Hello. 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. Dayewalker (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking the edits of other editors you are in disputes with will absolutely not be tolerated. You have clearly been doing this, and any further behavior of this sort will lead to a block on your account. If not for the fact that most of your edits appear to be useful and reasonable, you would probably be blocked already. Please take this notice seriously. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not meant to be a taunt. It was an actual warning to prevent an additional mindlessly revert, because I was afraid he would.

So you're saying I can be blocked for positive contributions to articles because they have been previously edited by users I have had a previous conflict with? That sounds like any user that has ever had a conflict should be blocked. 128.104.truth (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You were explicitly warned that stalking the edits of other editors would cause your account to be blocked. You did so anyway, and accordingly your account has been blocked for 24 hours. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Looie496 never addressed the question I had previously posed to him. "So you're saying I can be blocked for positive contributions to articles because they have been previously edited by users I have had a previous conflict with? That sounds like any user that has ever had a conflict should be blocked." All of the edits I have made since I posed that question have been positive contributions. For the rest of my time on Wikipedia do I have to check the edit history of each article I edit to ensure that Dayewalker and Off2riorob have never edited it before I can edit it? That seems a little extreme to me and at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia's free editing ideals.
Note: I do not actually care if I am unblocked for this or not, but would prefer if someone actually gave me an answer for what I feel is a legitimate concern.

Decline reason:

You have made no attempt at all to address the reason for your unblock. It is not helpful to use a Straw man argument by saying "So you're saying ..." followed by something that nobody except you has said. (In addition, I am doubtful whether I would ever unblock in response to a supposed unblock request which said "I do not actually care if I am unblocked for this or not", even if the request had merit otherwise, which this one doesn't.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 18 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I only said I don't care about being unblocked or not because getting an answer to my question (which I did not receive) is more important than being unblocked and since I am blocked I am worried that no one would bother to respond unless I posed my question as part of an unblock request. I apologize for posing my question as a straw man earlier, but I still have a concern that was ignored. "For the rest of my time on Wikipedia do I have to check the edit history of each article I edit to ensure that Dayewalker and Off2riorob have never edited it before I can edit [that article]?" How long after they have edited an article do I have to wait before I can edit it as well so it is not considered stalking? Also, if my edits are positive contributions why does it matter if they are on pages those editors have recently edited anyways?

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Please do not abuse this template. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:30, 18 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Just because I don't care if I should be unblocked does not mean that I did not pose a legitimate reason for being unblocked. Without an answer to my question there is no basis for my block and it should therefore be removed. I apologize that I have had to post this template for a third time, but I place the blame for that on JamesBWatson and jpgordon for not adequately explaining why the point I made is incorrect as justification for being unblocked. I hope that you (the new reviewer) will take all of my previous comments into consideration because I have only had to extend my reasoning (not change it) because of prior reviewers not fully considering my argument. If my edits are positive contributions why does it matter if they are on pages editors I have had previous conflict with recently edited? (I present this and this as an example of my positive contributions.) If you can explain why my positive contributions are bad, please explain the timeframe that I have to wait before I can edit an article after they have edited it.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. Sandstein 17:16, 18 October 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.

(Edit conflict) Declining on the merits. It is not the quality of those edits that is in dispute. The problem is that by following editors with whom you have had a conflict to other articles and reverting them (for whatever reason), you are continuing and exacerbating this conflict. Fanning the flames of conflict is bad. This block is only 24 hours. But if you continue following other editors around the wiki, the next one could be longer.--Chaser (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU, Chaser!! The first three reviewers did not even bother to address my concerns. Like you said, it is only a 24 hour block, which is why I originally said I did not care. I'll admit that it was foolish/stupid to do those revert edits, but those are what I received the warning for. It is for edits after that, which were absolutely and completely and only positive contributions, for which I was blocked. Is there a time frame to wait before editing a page previously edited by an editor I have had a conflict with? 128.104.truth (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you come upon the page through their contribution logs, then it is too soon. Stop wikistalking other editors.--Chaser (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Perez Hilton, you may be blocked from editing. This isn't new information for you. Your unsourced opinions about things don't belong in articles Onorem ♠Dil 15:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My unsourced opinions? There is no citation for him being gay, so what is there to prove that I'm wrong? 128.104.truth (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to pick something to take a stand on

vapid celebrity quotes are one way to go i guess.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the point of your poorly written post is? 128.104.truth (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]