User talk:76.182.20.129

November 2017
Hello, I'm SubSeven. I noticed that you recently removed content from ResetEra without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --SubSeven (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Ryūkotsusei. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, ResetEra, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A forum screen grab is not a reliable-third party source.  « Ryūkotsusei » 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to ResetEra. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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 ResetEra, you may be blocked from editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Define disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * I think it is quite clear what is happening here. You've been engaged in an edit war over the last few days, attempting to push the content you want onto the article. This must end. Edit warring is by itself disruptive, much less the personal analysis you've been attempting to add to the article. If you truly believe this material belongs on the article, your next step towards doing so isn't yet another revert. You need to take this to the article's talk page and discuss the matter there. Further edit warring will only result in the material being removed and you being blocked. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why am I the only one being called out here? What's wrong? Facts aren't actually okay if they portray NeoGAF's sister site negatively or something?

I know what I'm doing is right. Talk to the people who keep reverting it to protect ResetEra at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * What you are doing isn't right within the context of Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia isn't a place for people to post their opinions on subjects. I'm sure you can understand that if we allowed people to add their own personal analysis of a subject, we would have constant wars of opinion. It would never end. This addition you have been trying to make is clearly within this realm. While I am convinced you are certain you are correct, there is always another perspective. If we allowed this to happen in articles, it would be an endless shouting match. The way through this is to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article and reach consensus on what to do. The cite you've been attempting to use is a screenshot of a dispute. This is, at best, a primary source. But more so, you are using synthesis of this primary source to support your claim for the material you are trying to insert. Instead, you need to find secondary sources, such as news articles, journals articles, etc. to support the assertion. Failing this, it is extremely unlikely this material would ever be included. Bottom line; your next step forward is the article talk page. Continuing the edit war will not work. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not an "opinion" being posted. Factually, it is the same place, and factually, they're not protecting themselves from a brigade, rather, they ARE the thing they claim to be against.

There is no other perspective. It is factual, proven by THEM, that it is the same place and has overly uptight moderation and censorship, just like NeoGAF. It is not a different site.

You have no right to threaten me with "editing blocks" because you're a member of the site and you disagree with portraying them accurately to how they behave. That is the classic, age-old Wikipedia abuse that so many "editors" think they're entitled to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry you think I threatened to blocked you. I haven't, and couldn't, since I'm not an administrator. I'm sorry you think I'm being abusive. My intent was very much otherwise, as I've taken considerable time to educate you on the pertinent issues related to this case. My attempts apparently are not welcome, or in the very least are not being received. We have a crystal clear policy on edit warring here. I've linked it above, but I'll do so again here: Edit warring. I don't know anything about ResetEra. I also don't know what "NeoGAF" means. I don't need to. It is blatantly clear that any attempts you make to push this material onto the article again, without discussing it on the article's talk page, will be a violation of the edit warring policy. Violating policies here has consequences. That's not a threat. That's information for you to consume. If you want to violate policies, you can expect that someone will do something about it to stop you. It's your choice. I've shown you the correct path towards getting this resolved. If you choose to take the wrong path, you (a) won't succeed in getting the content into the article (so far you've tried 7 times and each time it's been removed) and (b) will very likely experience consequences for failing to follow our policies. Do as you will. I hope you have a pleasant day. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I love it when trolls online do the "I didn't threaten you, but [...]" routine, where you say you didn't threaten someone but then you do it again. Bugger off, got it?

You ARE indeed being abusive because you're preventing me from doing my damn job as an editor. Not one single rule of the edit policy is being violated. The idiots who keep reverting it ARE violating it. There's no such thing as an edit war without some jerk undoing everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * I think we have nothing further to discuss. I've explained the situation to you. You've chosen to insult me and insist you are right and everyone else who is undoing your edits is a "jerk". Please feel free to proceed as you have before. Note that I am not saying you are right, nor that your actions are proper and inline with policy, just that you are free to continue as you have before. Enjoy and goodbye, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at ResetEra. --SubSeven (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll ask you once, to stop reverting my goddamn edits.

I'll also ask you once, to tell me what "violated" the policy. It is entirely neutral and nothing there is false. Wikipedia now only lists the facts that are convenient for you? Boo-freaking-hoo, kid.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)


 * HammerSoft already patiently explained it to you. You ignored the explanation. --SubSeven (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

BS. No one explained "anything". You can keep spouting "MUH POLICEE" but not a single goddamn policy was broken at all. You can keep quoting some policy page until your ass turns blue but I don't give a damn. Apparently, you only want the facts that look "good", as evident by the piss-poor quality of the current ResetEra page anyway.

Like it claiming "alleged" sexual harassment claims against Tyler Malka, despite him admitting to such things over a decade ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * When the block expires in ~15 hours, you can re-insert the content you want back into the article for what would be the 9th time. You will very likely be reverted for the 9th time. You will very likely be blocked, this time for a longer period than the 31 hours of this block. You are absolutely insistent you are correct, and everyone else is wrong. That's fine. I'm sure, because of your high level of motivation, that you will want to have the most effective means of putting this material into the article. You do; it's called getting consensus on the article's talk page. Doing so is part of dispute resolution. You've been told that edit warring isn't the way forward. Despite this, you apparently were certain that edit warring it back in for the 8th time would work when the prior 7 attempts all failed. It didn't. I hope you understand the futility of trying for the 9th time, and will refrain from doing so. If all of this is just too much reading; go to the talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The only "edit war" going on is from obstructionist idiots who insist on reverting it.

It takes two to edit war, and the reverters are the ones at fault. Not the person trying to actually engage in contribution. And YOU KNOW THIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * In addition to the other policies you've been pointed to, you are also violating another policy. Please see No personal attacks. Referring to people, myself included, as "obstructionist idiots" violates that policy. Continued violations of that policy sometimes leads to editor's privileges to edit their talk page being suspended in addition to being blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, more threats. And I'm the one who's apparently "violating policy"?

Don't worry. I won't try and make your pages actually have useful information anymore. Go back to selling pages to corporations who wish to own them---that's great for an encyclopedia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * As you well know, they are not threats. I'm sorry you feel motivated to intentionally mis-characterize my comments. Thank you for agreeing to stop the edit war. Since we appear to have made progress on that front, perhaps we can make a bit more progress and have you contribute to the talk page of the article and discuss the addition? However, I perfectly understand if you're not willing to work in a collaborative, consensus building environment. Perhaps your talents lie elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps your talents lie elsewhere, tyrant. No one's willing to "work" for anything. It's just a bunch of obstructionists blocking edits they don't personally like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Information orange.svg 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. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't antagonize people. Can't blame someone for getting mad when that's precisely what you're going for. Either both get blamed, or no one.

Furthermore, no one's "commenting on my content", they're just shitting all over it and me (one of your "great, approved editors" was calling me a freaking alt-right nazi for putting my contributions there), no one's giving me a chance. Instant unedits from ResetEra drones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * I am certainly not doing anything to antagonize you. The warnings I've given you are the process by which we escalate warnings until the point a person is warned a final time for a type of violation. After that final warning (called a level 4 warning), should they continue the same behavior they are usually blocked. The warning I just gave you is a level 2 warning. See Template:Uw-npa2, and if you're curious about other types of warnings see index of message templates. The only conversation that has been happening on this subject is here and in the edit summaries of ResetEra. Where discussion should be happening is at Talk:ResetEra. This is how we resolve content disputes. We don't do it via edit summaries. You are obviously highly motivated to want to have this material on the article. I guarantee you the material will not make it onto the article without you discussing the issue on the article's talk page. I've said as much before. That's your route. You're no longer blocked. You can choose to do that, and perhaps you will make progress in getting what you want done. Continuing as you have before this will not succeed. It's your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah. More obstructionist threats. How typical. So you're going after the obstructionists who were blocking my changes too, right? After all, you can't have an edit war without some ninny constantly reverting things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * As I've explain multiple times now, I haven't threatened you a single time. I don't have to threaten you. I've continued to explain our policies to you. But, no matter. If you're convinced I am threatening you, you are welcome to take the matter up at WP:AN/I. That should be enough of that. To the matter at hand; if you want to get your material onto the article, you will need to take it to the article's talk page. I look forward to your excellent contributions there. I am sure you will make a persuasive argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, more roundabout redirecting. You people love to avoid responsibility, don't you?

You haven't explained jacksquat and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Weird. I could have sworn I've edited this page before. Odd. Let me try again; when do you plan on trying to achieve consensus on Talk:ResetEra to include the content you wish to include? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

When do those obstinate oafs want to actually let me contribute instead of being obstructionists and reverting everything that goes against their (your) wittle hive-mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Nobody will revert you on the talk page. Any particular reason you're waiting? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No one will listen there, either, or they wouldn't be breaking Wikipedia policy by being obstructionist edit trolls, but you already know that, being one and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * So you really don't want the material on the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I do but I really don't want to deal with your hateful cohorts who refer to me as an alt-right Nazi. Of course, no suspensions there, but that's because you approve of that behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.20.129 (talk • contribs)
 * The only person who did was an IP, just as yourself. They haven't done anything since. Go ahead. Post to the talk page. If someone behaves like that again, I'm sure they will be taken to task over it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ron h jones (Talk) 22:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.