User talk:99.139.148.107

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to The Great Santini has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "animated series" that was clearly bullshit? That content?

The recent edit you made to The Great Santini constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

ARE YOU GOING TO BOTHER TO READ MY REPLIES? THE CONTENT IS TOTAL CRAP ADDED BY THIS GUY WHO ADDED A BUNCH OF FAKE "ANIMATED SERIES" TO VARIOUS ARTICLES.

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to The Great Santini. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? ARE YOU JUST AN IDIOTIC AUTOMATON? READ WHAT I POSTED AND STOP BEING A FOOL!

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to The Great Santini. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without  further notice. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

CLEARLY YOU CAN'T READ. I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY TO YOU.


 * You might want to try using the "edit summary" box to explain yourself, instead of responding on your talk page where people may or may not be checking for said explanations (since the edit summary box is where they normally go). - Vianello (Talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

THAT SAME GUY KEEPS LEAVING THESE WARNINGS AND IGNORING MY REPLIES.
 * Yes. I see that. That is why I made this recommendation. They may not be checking by here for responses, possibly expecting further edits to use edit summaries or for you to leave a response on their talk page, so they may not even be seeing them. - Vianello (Talk) 08:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I PUT REASONS WHEN I REMOVED IT. THAT DUDE KEEPS IGNORING ME.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at The Great Santini. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. - Vianello (Talk) 08:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I apologize, but continually reverting edits over and over and over is called Edit warring, and is heavily prohibited - it makes a mess, doesn't accomplish anything and is against policy for those reasons. To prevent this from continuing I have placed a block on this IP temporarily. You might, in future, want to go to the article's talk page and explain/demonstrate why the information you're removing is false, instead of just repeating yourself. - Vianello (Talk) 08:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, you can't leave messages while blocked, that's part of why you'd be unblocked if that were what you were going to do. The thing is, you haven't made a clear effort to communicate with these other users. You made vague comments in edit summaries (only one of which, like I said, even came close to explaining), and left messages here where they may not have had any real reason to be looking for replies. A response on another user's talk page is generally (not always, but generally) the most reliable way to get their attention. Anyway, no, I actually don't think you're "in the wrong". This section looks fishy to me too. The problem is just that edit warring is disruptive and pointless (as I think is demonstrated pretty well here) and you haven't given any indication that you plan to go about this any other way. You keep restating that you don't see any point to communicating, so it leaves me to ask: If you don't plan on that, what WOULD you do if the block were removed? Because if it's more of the same, I'm afraid that can't fly. By the way, this format of using unblock reviews to reply is kind of awkward now that I think about it. If you post another request, I'll just reply below it, and I'll personally leave the request template alone until we've hashed things out. It's less spammy that way, I think. Unless you prefer it this way. - Vianello (Talk) 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the onus SHOULD be on them. And personally, if you wanna just leave this alone, I'm gonna tag that section as circumspect myself, because I don't think they've strictly made that. Again, this whole blocking thing isn't about whether or not the article section is bullhonkey - it's about whether or not you should remain blocked because you pose a continued edit war "risk". - Vianello (Talk) 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, fix your capslock. Q T C 09:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I NEVER SAID I HAD NO INTENTION OF COMMUNICATING. I DID IT RIGHT HERE. IF THAT ISN'T THE RIGHT WAY, I DON'T SEE WHY I SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR NOT KNOWING THAT. FRANKLY, IF ANY OLD JACKASS CAN ADD FAKE INFORMATION AND THE ONUS IS ON THE GUY REMOVING IT TO PROVE THAT IT IS FALSE...THEN I PRETTY MUCH HAVE NO DESIRE TO EVER TRY TO HELP HERE EVER AGAIN. IF THAT ISN'T THE WAY IT IS HERE (EVEN THOUGH IT IS SERIOUSLY COMING ACROSS THAT WAY) THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS STUFF WORKS. IF I AM BEING HARASSED FOR USING CAPS LOCK (WHICH I WAS USING TO TRY AND GET THAT OTHER GUY'S ATTENTION WHEN HE KEPT PLASTERING ME WITH THREATS) THEN THIS IS EVEN DUMBER THAN I INITIALLY THOUGHT.

First off, no, this has nothing to do with your caps lock key. Anyway. I've gone ahead and tagged that section as needed references and as a potential hoax, after failing to find any sign of its existence on some of my own cursory searching. If nothing is forthcoming, then it can probably be safely removed, citing this specific issue (that is, that it's a potential hoax that has gone a long time without verification despite attempts). I don't mean to sound smug, but that's the way to get things done here. Communicate clearly and make your concerns obvious. Now, I know you tried to and just went about it in what is not the best way, and that's no huge deal, but the way you handled it was just disruptive and making a mess without getting things anywhere, hence the block. If you're satisfied with how things are settling down now, you might want to just kick back, find something else to do for a while, and come back around later to find something else to work on. It's great that you brought this to our attention and all, you just made some heat of the moment beginner's mistakes. You're right. The onus IS on people providing info. The article had a problem. You just responded to it wrongly. And I already explained a few times how your communications were not exactly perfect. You made the attempt, but just saying "clearly bullshit", and not using edit summaries, doesn't really get your point across very well. All you did was assert it was BS, and then get loudly upset (no offense intended). Edit warring isn't a substitute for communicating well. - Vianello (Talk) 09:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it might help, just take a look at what I did. I posted up some templates bringing up the concerns about that section (you can find them at WP:Templates, real useful), and used an edit summary to explain why they were put up. And if no info is forthcoming after people have had a chance to put it up, I'll remove it and explain why. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that, even though I'm doing what you did, it won't cause an edit war. There's nothing wrong with your goal here, there are just better ways to do it. Sometimes learning by imitation is the best way to go about it, and Wikipedia has a LOT of stuff to learn. - Vianello (Talk) 09:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I WAS ONLY TRYING TO REMOVE FALSE INFORMATION. I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS CAUSING A HUGE PROBLEM. HONESTLY. BUT IF I AM TO REMAIN BLOCKED, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK THROUGH THE REST OF THIS GUY'S EDITS. HE ADDED FAKE CARTOONS TO THE WALTONS, TAXI, HOW CLEAN IS YOUR HOUSE? (THAT ONE WAS ESPECIALLY DUMB AS HE CLAIMED IT WAS A CW SERIES THAT WAS HOSTED BY DAPHNE AND VELMA OF SCOOBY DOO) AND MORE.
 * That does sound pretty bad. And honestly, this is why I wanted to talk to you about this stuff. You're paying attention and keeping your eyes peeled for problems, and the more people we have doing that, the better. I sure wouldn't have noticed this stuff. Like I said before, the reason for the block persisting was because you had not made it clear that you had no intention of just heading "back into the trenches" if the block were removed. If you can give your word you'll try to follow policy and the example of other editors (well, MOST other editors) in how to handle things and not start any other edit wars, then there's no more risk and there's no more need for the block. Like I said, what I'd recommend doing is using templates like those, and maybe going to the talk/discussion pages of the articles in question and bring up your concerns. Then take it from there. No offense again, but I'd recommend switching off the caps lock key to do that, just as kind of a tip. People respond better to it, and for folks who are around here a lot, all-caps accompany problems more often than not. Anyway, can you agree to handling things more like that? (Er, the process. The caps lock thing is your call in the end. All I can offer on that is a hint/my opinion.) By the way, Talk:The Great Santini has already seen someone else asking questions about this section. It looks like the WP:Consensus is apt to shift for its removal, unless somebody comes bursting in with verifiable sources for it (unlikely, I think). - Vianello (Talk) 09:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I need to hit the sack. I hope you can be contented at least this part of the problem is being taken care of. I'm leaving your unblock request up and another admin is freely encouraged to look at what we've got here and make a call. Hopefully when you come back around later on you're able and willing to give things another shot. Another good pair of eyes is always helpful, and I'd rather we didn't lose ya! Just remember to keep a cool head and stay civil, and you'll find a gentle touch moves mountains around here. - Vianello (Talk) 09:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed your talk page access for the duration of your block because you have made too many invalid unblock requests. This is disruptive.  Sandstein   10:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)