User talk:Crystal.seed

Hillsborough
Hi,

You reverted a reversion regarding whether or not to categorise Hillsborough as a crush or a stampede. Your reversion has been undone in subsequent edits. If you wish to contest this, please read the previous discussion here first. If you still think the word should be "stampede" then please start a new discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster rather than reverting again - see WP:BRD and WP:EW for more information. Thanks. 2.25.105.253 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the term has since been changed to "crowd crush" rather than "human crush"... "human crush" just sounded rather off, in where "human stampede" would have made a better alternative to "human crush". But "crowd crush" sounds better than both. Crystal.seed (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You might also want to read WP:MINOR. I don't think your edit was minor the first time, and it definitely was not minor when you restored it after it was undone. Meters (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * e.c. Agree that "crowd crush" reads better. Meters (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Meters? Literally changing a single word seems like a minor edit to me. What are you talking about? Crystal.seed (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I just glanced over at WP:MINOR. But I still think you are nitpicking. Crystal.seed (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first edit is arguable minor. I don't think it was, but I can see a case for it being so. The second edit was clearly not minor, and in fact was a violation of WP:BRD. No edit that has already been contested on viable grounds is ever minor. Meters (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meters, I was under the impression that my second edit, was only reverting the edit which was made against the single word I changed. I am still not sure what exactly you are talking about, I am assuming the second edit (which was presumably the reversion I made) was only to revert that single word. I would have to inspect the edit history in detail. But could you please clarify on exactly what happened anyway. Crystal.seed (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You made the edits but you are not even willing to look at the history yourself? You piped "human crush" to "human stampede" here. After looking at it again, I am even more convinced that was not a minor edit. Your edit summary "The word 'crush' sounds very primitive. 'Stampede', although originally related to animals, seems to give a better description, and sounds better" seems to show that even you did not really think this was minor. It was undone here. You restored your edit here again marked as minor. I've wasted enough time on this minor issue. Meters (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries implied the big issue was stampede vs crush, which is why I thought it was worth pointing you at the previous discussion. Actually, your entire edit was undone by three different editors. You missed this edit, which changed the wording back to "human crush". To my mind the only important issue is avoiding the word "stampede", but if you think that "crowd crush" is better then I'd suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster given that lots of editors are currently working on the article. That way you can avoid any possibility of an edit war. Also worth considering: the "human crush" term comes from an attempt to improve the Stampede article (and make the distinction between humans and animals). To my reading, the wording of that article is conducive to using the term "crowd crush" throughout, which would then make the rewording in the Hillsborough article follow naturally. Also the "human" qualifier would be unnecessary if that article was split into one for human crowd problems and one for animals. There's plenty of discussion at Talk:Stampede and again, more discussion may be a good idea before trying anything too radical. Good luck! 2.25.105.253 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Meters, I read WP:MINOR now, and better understand what 'minor' is used for. I always just assumed it was generally used for small edits, thanks. Crystal.seed (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I mistakenly thought that human crush (or crowd crush) and stampede were separate articles. My apologies. Your first is more understandable now. I wouldn't have marked it minor even the first time, but I wouldn't look twice at an any edit that did call it minor the first time. Repeating an edit (by anyone) that has already been undone, and particularly one of your own edits that has already been undone is not minor. Anyways, no biggie. I was just letting you know so you would know for next time. Meters (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's all good, Meters, I stepped out of editing because it was obvious many editors were engaged within that article. To be clear here, since I have obviously run afoul with some administrator, the only edit I made was altering one single word, and then revering that single edit only once. If you have any spare time and personal interest in the subject, try reviewing the neutrality of the FA Lightning article (Final Fantasy 13 character). There is heavy biased sources which needs to be addressed, but I think this issue only may be resolved by tackling core wikipedia policy on acceptable sources. I believe this is a serious matter which needs to be resolved and neutral parties such as yourself would help. Crystal.seed (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion
I can't help but notice a ton of similarities between yourself and, an editor currently blocked for disruptive editing. They too, decided to cause a big stink when a Final Fantasy article was made a featured article, without proposing any actual counter sources/information to change it. Are you Andiar? Sergecross73  msg me  20:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha Oh wow, I can see why you might think this! But no, unfortunately the article I'm editing is obviously biased. Crystal.seed (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear we've got the same exact scenario, at the same exact time (featured article status), with someone who awkwardly puts a period in the middle of their user name, and it's all just a big, crazy coincidence? Sergecross73   msg me  20:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And now there's the fact that you are basely accusing people of benefiting from the content of the article. That is also just like Andiar. This is all just too big of a coincidence to me. You are blocked from editing due to block evasion. Sergecross73   msg me  20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your final comment before blocking me was accusing me of participating in original research. This is not true. I didn't create that image, and it's well known among the gaming community that Lightning is a copy of cloud. There are plenty of sources for this. I'm just working fast while the page is still being featured on the homepage of wikipedia. Crystal.seed (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is definitely original research. Its irrelevant who made the image, the problem is that you're trying to use an image as a source at all. You're taking a image, looking at it, making an observation, and then using that observation as a source. To make such a claim, it would need to be a text statement literally saying "Lightning looks like Cloud". The statement needs to come from a journalist from a website/magazine/book, not the conclusion you came to from looking at an image. I'd encourage you to find an acceptable source, but as your main account is still blocked, you're not allowed to be making any edits to Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  20:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the image I provided, friend. And once again I need to remind you that I have been banned before I was able to provide any sources. These sources do exist, and I never claimed sources don't exist, I was just in a hurry to post my material on the actual article as quickly as possible since the page was being showcased on wikipedia. But the image I provided is actually valid evidence, are you honestly going to sit here and deny what is clearly obvious? Initally my edits were first reverted without any discussion, even though I already took the time in providing a topic of discussion (knowing this might be an issue) before hand. This is very sloppy administration, and I have already indeed proved it to be biased.

And I am certainly not the user Andiar.Rhonds.


 * You can ban users all you want, but I must inform you this will not work in your favor, friend.
 * Ah yes, vague threats was also an Andiar trait. You are absolutely Andiar, but even if you weren't, your complete inability or unwillingness to understand the websites most basic policy validates the block anyways. We get it - you've got some vendetta against Final Fantasy, and/or the Japanese video game industry/media. But Wikipedia is not the medium for your crusade - take it somewhere else. Continuing here will only lead to more blocks and the loss of the ability to edit your talk page. Sergecross73   msg me  01:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Vague threats? Do you really not see the effect your administration has already had? Seems like you are winning battles only to lose the war. And I am really not Andiar.rohnd
 * Actually have no fear of telling you who I am, nor do I have any personal vendettas against you or Final Fantasy, but I do despise sneaky, biased administration though. "Andiar.rhonds" and I live in the same hosehold, but we really are two very different people, I'm not making this up. And there is no rules against people who are in the same household to use Wikipedia, or share similar opinions. But not all of our opinions are the same. Just most. Either way, your biased administration really has no emotional or personal effect on us. Crystal.seed (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Last response - please read WP:MEAT.  Sergecross73   msg me  01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, my apologies then, Sergecross73 . I see this is not exactly allowed. But it's extremely natural and effortless for us to collaborate and share information, especially with how our computers are set up within this household and the wonderful, happy relationship we share together. We would have to make a conscious effort avoid participation in WP:MEAT, I assure you no particular external effort is involved with our collaboration. How about you unban me as a measure of good faith, so that I may resume providing sources and finishing my edits. Crystal.seed (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also believe I am technically free to create another account, since this ban is for "Andiar" and not me. Would this be correct, Sergecross73  ? Crystal.seed (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, to be clear, I don't buy your "meatpuppet" theory, I'm just saying that it's not a valid argument either way. Sorry, but there are many ways that you write exactly like Andriar. It doesn't make sense for a roommate or sibling or something to do accurately mimic your traits without any influence. You're free to attempt an unblock request, but I can't believe any Admin would fall for this, with all the evidence available. Sorry, you're just not good at pretending to be someone else. Sergecross73   msg me  02:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, technically there is no "meatpuppet" going on, but I see how you can assume this. But I assure you, I am actually not andiar.rhonds. Maybe I will try the unblock request at another time. But you never really answered my question about if I'm able to create another account since this ban does not actually apply to me. I am certainly not andiar.rhonds, but we do think alike. This is actually true I must admit, people who know us in real life comment on our similarities all the time. Perhaps I will just use another computer with dynamic internet and contribute as an IP. Once again, please don't assume I am andiar.rhonds, because truly am not. Thank you. And please consider showing a measure of good faith by unbanning this account so that I may actually provide accurate and correct information to the articles I choose to edit. Crystal.seed (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you may not create other accounts. Attempting to understand policy, and starting to provide actual reliable sources on this talk page, would be a lot more convincing than anything else really. Sergecross73   msg me  03:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think you should be unblocked than make a request for an unblock and see if an admin will accept it. Creating another account while this account is already blocked for block evasion is a really bad idea. Meters (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Humm, ok I agree, Sergecross73, but we must also review all the sources within the article in dispute, sound fair? I also believe neutral parties need to throw in their opinion on this matter too. I would love to start contributing actual real valid sources, but I don't have any assurance my efforts will not be wasted. So this is why I ask you to simply unban me in good faith since I'm actually not andiar.rhonds. Do we agree? Also, are you saying I cannot create another account based on policy or based on your own personal opinion? Because I really am not andiar.rhonds, so this ban really shouldn't apply to me. Not sure how many times I need to repeat this, but I really feel that you need to step up and take measure in good faith, especially with your position as administrator vs. my general inexperienced rank as a Wikipedia editor. Crystal.seed (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. This is the exact same thing Andiar would do - talk and complain on and on without ever offering any real constructive suggestions for change. Last chance. Either show some attempt to understand Wikipedia through providing reliable sources, post an unblock request, or you'll get your talk page access revoked. Sergecross73   msg me  03:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree Disagreeing with you is something andiar would do. But I am not him, friend. Crystal.seed (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk page access revoked. Sergecross73   msg me  04:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)