User talk:4ReeZy

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is you who is/are making disruptive edits. I gave a valid primary source, and you're going as far as saying I need a secondary source.

Clearly based off editing history, you and a few others are trying to hide the impact private servers had on Gravity and their game Ragnarok Online.

Below is another, highly credible source, in which I'll be using in the next edit on that page. "Secondary" source if you will.https://mmos.com/news/gravity-is-taking-legal-action-against-ragnarok-online-rogue-servers

Please do not continue to try an erase an important part of this games history as the information is clearly out there from credible source. You are also at risk of losing your editing privileges based off your hasteful and disruptive revisions. 4ReeZy (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you and a few others are trying to hide the impact private servers There is no conspiracy theory here.

Wikipedia simply does not use court documents as sourcing like this. MMos.com is on the list of unreliable sources, which you can find at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. Feel free to bring this up at WP:RSN if you want additional input, but I am sure you will be told the same thing there. You are also at risk of losing your editing privileges based off your hasteful and disruptive revisions. - Don't make empty threats, that is simply not going to happen. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source but not untrustworthy. Still a valid secondary source to strengthen the primary one. IMDB is listed as an unreliable source but yet appears as citation to many movies. Example: [[Spider-Man (2002 film)#cite ref-lonely 10-0:~:text=with Peter Parker.-,[10],-Tobey Maguire as|Spider-Man (2002 film)]].

"There is no conspiracy theory here." And so you're basically admitting to trying to hide private server information? Interesting.

Also, I made no threat. Simply reiterating the same possibilities that you said could happen to me, can also, happen to you.

The Ragnarok Online wiki page arguably has much more things that need citations to prove said statements , yet you are specifically targeting the private server segment. Biases is showing. 4ReeZy (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Enough. user:MrOllie hasn't given you a formal NPA warning, so I will. Discuss the article content issues at Talk:Ragnarok Online (and Talk:Gravity (Korean company) if required), and stop making accusations about other editors. Meters (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept this, and is a much more reasonable warning than how user:MrOllie tried to passive-aggresively attack me. I get it, one thing it is to just remind someone of the possibilities that can happen to one account, but it was almost unneccesary for him to throw in the "disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.". It comes off extremely dick-ish. Especially after his edit comments prior to writing what he did on my talk page.

This is even much better than user:Chris_troutman handling of issuing a warning.

I will discuss further article issues in the respective talk. However, as far as accusations go, I don't just accuse with no backing. Neither did I accuse multiple times or multiple people. Ragnarok has existed since 2002, was fairly popular, and almost 2 decades later there is absolutely 0 way there's no mention of Private Servers on any of the pages despite its impact. Anyone can google "Ragnarok Online Private Servers" and be met with something almost no other MMOs go through.

It's come to a point that it seems almost deliberate someone/people is trying to suppress the impact of Private Servers, as if they who monitor the pages works for / benefits from Gravity to some degree. All I'm sayin'. Anywho, goodluck moderating! 4ReeZy (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:4ReeZy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. What part of Comment on content, not on contributors did you not understand? Meters (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment on the content. This is a unwarranted warning. I literally commented on the situation. I didn't call anybody names. These same people are editing without discussion, yet I'm the only one being penalized. This won't be going unnoticed. 4ReeZy (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a user "dickish" and suggesting that editors are trying to suppress information and that they work for the company are attacks. Don't comment on users. Meters (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call a user "dickish", I said how they responds comes off "dickish" when I was explaining to another user/wiki editor. Please stop trying to radicalized my comments. They aren't attacks. This is was always about the content. Not the users. No mention of names to prove that. 4ReeZy (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gravity (Korean company). You have been asked more than once to discuss your edits on the articles talk pages. Per WP:BRD itis up to you to get discuss and get consensus on the talk pages for contested edits rather than restoring them. Meters (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid explanation as why my edit is valid. No one else is trying to discuss it in the article talk section, yet I'm the one being warned? I gave sources to an official statement said by the official website itself with a link to said official site, yet I'm in the wrong. Interesting. 4ReeZy (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted. You restored it without making any attempt to discuss the edit on the article's talk page, and with making any changes to the edit. As the one who is attempting to add the material it is up to you to take this to the talk page. We can likely include some version of this information, but I agree with user:ThaddeusSholto's summary [1]. There are definitely problems with how you added it. Either discuss this on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So people can antagonize my editing, yet I have to discuss said edits on the talk page and clearly, more veteran users don't? Selective biases are showing once again. Should be no reason the last person before me to discuss on that page was in 2008. Surely someone else must've gotten warning to go to the talk section of them pages. Clearly something fishy is going on 2008 to 2024... Things like this should be discussed, or else it'll be silenced forever & eventually forgotten about. Things like this I refuse to be forgotten about. And to me some version of this information sounds like "how do we write this without the mention of Private Servers". Otherwise, I legit don't get why ya'll going so hard to prevent a unharmful & very informative edit.

And once again, official words about Private Servers from the official website is being messed with. That's peak source. That's tampering with facts at it's finest.

http://renewal.playragnarok.com/news/updatedetail.aspx?id=339 4ReeZy (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, could we have another editor that does not have shared articles with the offended party check this?

It seems very clear that MrOllie has engaged in speedy deletions (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Over-hasty_Speedy_Deleters). Taking a novice editor to task by coming to his user page and threatening to ban him is tantamount to gatekeeping (see https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)

Again, please lets have a neutral third-party here check the additions to the Ragnarok Online article. 68.188.156.135 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are engaging in personal attacks on other editors, spreading conspiracy theories, and using unreliable sources. It must come to a stop. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not engaging in personal attacks not spreading conspiracy theories. You are both biting newcomers [2] and preventing bold, sourced changes. Instead of talking, you both just threaten and block. Sad state of affairs when the very experienced administrators operate on their rules instead of being welcoming and *helping* an edit. There is clearly no assumption of good faith here.

We will see if I will be blocked too for raising this issue here.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be blocked at this time but I encourage you to move on and do something productive. As an adminstrator, I have no interest in the content dispute and instead, I am dealing with the inappropriate behavior, which must stop. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

4ReeZy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got a warning and acknowledged so and disengaged. The last thing I said was at: 23:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Already further discussed and acknowledge warnings with user:Meters on my talk page. As the original dispute came from user:MrOllie talk page.

Suddenly, I'm getting issued a ban at: 04:02, 22 March 2024 user:Cullen328 claims it's for: "engaging in personal attacks on other editors, spreading conspiracy theories, and using unreliable sources." Despite me engaging in 0 activity between my last reply and issued block.

I simply find these is claims exaggerated & unjustifiable as I already accepted it and moved on.

Decline reason:

Based on Special:Diff/1214890177 and Special:Diff/1214891893, where you express contempt for using reliable sources, you probably should stay blocked. As an encyclopedia, the whole point of Wikipedia is to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say. If you don't like being forced to use reliable sources, Wikipedia isn't the right website for you. You're also personalizing disputes and making silly accusations against people. I mean, really, accusing someone of wanting to use reliable sources, as if that's a bad thing? Everyone gets a bit worked up and irritable when their edit is reverted. That's natural. However, once Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines are explained to you, you're expected to read them and start following them. You can't just say, "Nope, I don't like reliable sources." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (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.

Your definition of contempt is a skewed misunderstood one. "the whole point of Wikipedia is to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say" in which I did, and anything that may have been considered biased could've been tweaked rather than full on reverted. Ya'll even kept uncited information I wrote in on other segments, but when it comes to the private server bits with sources, it was removed. I wrote down events and briefly described them as neutral as can be. Also, the moderators and admins attending to me keep glossing over the official source provided from the companies themselves. This showcases the upmost selective information bias at it's finest. I never displayed any sort of problem against using a reliable source. I only ever stated that "an unreliable source isn't necessarily an untrustworthy one", which I don't think is a reach to say; as many articles use "unreliable sources" such as Spider-man (2002). You too are also exaggerating the matter. I didn't make any accusations of "wanting to use a reliable source". That doesn't even make sense. I didn't just say "Nope, I don't like reliable sources.", nor anything similar. The hell? Is this the adminship of Wikipedia? This is actually peak accusation. Responses like this I believe justifies my speculations and "accusations". Feels almost coordinated.