User talk:Megerflit

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Megerflit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

WP:COI
Hi, please read WP:COI as editors with a COI should not complete major edits on the article but can make suggestions on the article talk page. Biographies of living people must be referenced to reliable sources so only add referenced material in independent sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. ''Self promotion is not allowed. All material must be referenced to prove it is correct. Also what was added was like an advert. If you continue to add this you will be blocked.'' Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Nick Bougas. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Home Lander (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, nobody "attacked" your editors ... they have been behaving like vindictive pests, engaging in subtle and overt forms of slander and harassment since I first submitted my brief, factual bio of Nick Bougas. He's a guy whose history I know pretty well since I happen to shave him each morning. Do you honestly feel it's appropriate for your editors to blast my very curt submission as "self promoting","advert-like","pretentious", etc. when it's actually a thousand times more engaging, fleshed-out and informative than the drab, incomplete crap that the editors trimmed it down to? In my initial post I mentioned many of the magazine titles I had done illustrations for ... this would be valuable information for someone researching 80's/90's counterculture publications. Why was this info removed? I'm supposed to go through and provide solid proof that I was a contributor to each of these mags... that's ridiculous. The removal of my film credits is downright malicious harassment as the titles are confirmed on IMDB which one anger-fueled editor just falsely proclaimed to be an "unreliable source". You can't list a film credit on that site unless your name appears in the screen credits ... that's their policy. If you folks are this unnaturally dedicated to repeatedly razzing a Wiki subject who made a modest attempt to correct his bio, you're definitely in the wrong business. If you intend to alter the page again, I'm officially requesting that you remove my bio page from your silly site altogether. You folks give the curious impression that you're at war with the accomplished individuals whom you profit from showcasing. That's sad, indeed. Nick Bougas

Being the subject of a Wikipedia article
Hi Nick. It looks like you've received some boilerplate messages above. I'm here to tell you this is a real person ("Bri" is my handle on Wikipedia) writing to you personally. Wikipedia has some crazy-seeming rules and procedures for people who are new to it. It's a bit like seeing the inside of a sausage factory sometimes. But in the end it helps us to keep things accurate and responsible, which I hope you appreciate as the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Would you do me a favor and have a look at Contact us - Subjects? Once that is done you can reply here with any questions, if you want to talk to me more. Or reply at WP:COIN if you want to talk to a broader group of people who monitor autobiographical issues.

Another thing I should mention is that surprisingly few of us profit from being part of Wikipedia. For the overwhelming majority, myself included, it is a "labor of love" and we have only our own reputations and consciences to guide us, not renumeration. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Nick it's Bri again. I'm sad about the block. If you still want to be a volunteer editor here, you can. Maybe wait a bit before reapplying, and feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you want to talk. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Nick Bougas. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please leave the maintenance templates in place. They're there to get other editors to review the situation and help improve the article. As I noted on the talk page, I think the text is an improvement; that's why I didn't just completely undo all of your edits.
 * That said, if you haven't reverted away the tags three times today, you're close. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule that says an editor can be blocked for reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours. I'd hate to see your account get blocked, but if you're persisting in removing the maintenance tags and refusing to engage in civil discussions with your fellow editors, then it may become necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Nick Bougas. Home Lander (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding remedies, please indicate how you would like things to proceed regarding the Nick Bougas article:
 * You restore the maintenance templates do nothing and allow discussion of the issues to take place on the talk page.
 * You conclude that the article was better before you started editing it, and we roll it back to how it looked before you started.
 * You remove the templates again and get reported to the noticeboard for edit warring for administrative action for your conduct—likely a temporary block on your account.
 * You make more personal attacks against editors and get reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents for your conduct, which could lead to a longer-term block.
 * Your previous actions on the article have reached the level where they are unacceptable. Your next actions will determine how they need to be addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Nick Bougas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 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:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent refusal to accept that Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by an individual editor coming along and saying "STAND ASIDE FOR ME, BECAUSE MY PREFERRED VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE IS THE CORRECT  ONE." You were given a short block as a warning, but instead of taking the warning, you just came back with the same approach as before: edit-warring, personal attacks on other editors, treating an article as though you think you personally own it, aggressively insisting on your preferred version rather than politely and cooperatively discussing the issues with a view to trying to reach agreement, and so on. Very simply, that is not how Wikipedia works. 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:. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"We don't do this for a living, we're all unpaid volunteers."

(Groucho voice) "Well, I must say that you fellows are certainly giving Wikipedia their money's worth."

"Wikipedia isn't the project for you"

Lest I remind you, genius. . . I was drafted into this outfit. I didn't ask to have a Wiki page. But now that I do, you're telling me that I'm not entitled to be concerned when random strangers are screwing up the biographical info for the world to see. I'd say based on that absurd and unthinking quip of yours, that you're the one who's really unsuited for a Wiki position.

"your uncollegial attitude" ... really? (giggles) So all that sarcasm and hectoring I endured was delivered by a closely-knit fraternity of soft-talking adorable peacenik rainbow-worshipers, eh, cupcake? Funny, cuz ... ummmm, I routinely received some real unhinged and nasty displays from your "collegial" colleagues. In fact, I had never seen half-inch tall cap letters online until I received that manic message on your last official "infraction notice" ... yeah, you jokers are reeeeaeal cool, calm and "collegial".

Why am I not astounded that the unbridled arrogance that is the hallmark of your nest of vipers would prevent you from recognizing any of my comments (including the one you cited) as wholly valid OBSERVATIONS about your conduct and procedures, and not just "ranting and insults"? Believe me, Shirley, had I honestly intended to "unload" on your squishy tribe of Wikignats, I fear they may have required intensive therapy and warm cocoa for months. You people really are twisted in your noggins if you honestly believe you acted in any kind of legitimate and effective manner throughout this exchange. You also seem to have a gigantic chip on your shoulder over being unpaid toadies ... maybe the company should toss your sniffy pack of prima donnas a little folding cash so you can quit taking out your suppressed rage impulses on the hapless Wiki subjects. It's actually tragically amusing to see you smugly lording over your silly little domain, wildly flailing the hammer of Hell and feeling all fulfilled when you get to restrict someone's access to their own bio page. I can't help but suspect that therein lies the rub ... an unaccomplished slug with no social skills, who will undoubtedly never have a Wikipage of his own, is apparently drunk on being in the unique position to banish those who can handily see right through him. Glory in it, while it lasts, little princess. The cosmos can suddenly turn cruel for the fey, deluded fool. I fear that the rarefied air that has you giddy today, may turn stale fairly soon. A shaky enterprise built on false notions and self importance is generally doomed to collapse. I must go now and struggle to survive this mortal, gaping wound that you have so inhumanely dealt me. If I do see the light of morn, I truly vow that I'll try to be more "collegial" for all my remaining days.

"Collegial" means "confused", right? (rimshot) Nyuk, Nyuk ... Nicky B.

Megerflit (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sarcasm and hectoring", "unhinged and nasty displays", "unbridled arrogance", "self importance"? I suggest you try looking carefully at your editign, and think how it must look to others.

80.168.174.130 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"I suggest you try looking carefully at your editign"

Why, yes, darlin' ... I'll hasten to do that little thing ... just as soon as I can find out what "editign" means.

So, that's what I'm reduced to dealing with here? "Editors" who can't spell "editing". Amazing.

"and think how it must look to others."

Exactly, what "others" are we talkin' about, Gertrude? Are you so lonesome and attention-starved in your dank, stifling Wikicave that you've begun to imagine that there are great throngs of people gleefully following the pious piffle you cough up here? It isn't enough that you and your caustic cohorts are so inept that the grand sum of all your misguided efforts on my behalf was to ban a Wiki subject's access to his own bio page. Now you further embarrass Wikipedia by lamely seeking to spar with my banished remains. It's like I suspected from the beginning ... there seems to be a strange debilitating fever that's infecting the Wiki staff and editors (or is that "editros" in your language?)... they somehow all curiously operate at the same level of dysfunction. I had at least a half dozen of the cumbersome clods performing tag-team haranguing while I was trying to get my film credits in place on the bio page and they behaved like they were all sharing a single diseased brain. Not one rational, help-minded human in the whole miserable lot. They kept erasing my legitimate entries and telling me that "IMDB isn't a credible source", which is patently ridiculous, as they are THE definitive source. You can't even be listed there unless your name actually appears in a film's credit reel. That's as solid and safe an inclusion policy as can exist. At any rate, I'm done with you headache-inducing knuckleheads. You're rude and self-absorbed ... you're indescribably lousy at your jobs and now you reveal that you're even pitiful at crossing swords. I mean, honestly ... that last retort was the weakest "right-back-atcha" I've ever seen. Amazingly, it also provided hard evidence that you occluded goons actually can't distinguish between astute observations and epithets ... just too pathetic for words. It's increasingly obvious that you poor Wikifolk are far too consumed by your (ahem) "work" and don't get out much. Maybe you should try going outside sometime and allow the cleansing sunlight to burn away some of that toxic sludge that's been gathering in your swampy skulls.

As ever, N.B.

Megerflit (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Can you revoke TPA privileges for Megerflit? Looks like he's now just resorting to just threats on his talk page after the appeal got declined. Thanks. theinstantmatrix"

How quaint, "Mr. Watson" and company ... you've unfairly banned me and now you're willing to engage in an out-and-out LIE to try take your personal grudge to the next official level. Please, delusional sir who made the above claim, show me ONE THREAT that has been made in the body of anything I've previously written here. Can it be, that in addition to not knowing how to spell "editing", you folks also have no concept of what constitutes "a threat". In case you haven't noticed, Braniac, my posts have been rather dismissive of you and your cohorts ... that's pretty much the opposite direction of where you're now trying to falsely nudge this matter. I'm still flabbergasted that none of you feels even a smidgen of shame for the way you've behaved. You just keep doubling down on your aggressive and unfounded banishing tactics ... even resorting to lies to achieve that end. If there's one administrator in that muddled morass that has an ounce of decency, you'll be called on the carpet and possibly dismissed for flagrantly misrepresenting my replies as threats. In fact, My last message to your deeply troubled outfit plainly and casually stated that "I'm done" seeking any fair or helpful treatment from Wikipedia. Did you not see that statement or are you too consumed pushing your own nasty little revenge strategy? Your attempting to now ratchet up an otherwise dormant situation by maliciously misstating the tone of my messages to your superiors is not wise in the least. I'm certainly not going to take manufactured misdeeds and this degree of wholesale badgering lying down. In the wake of having been lied about by one of your representatives, proving malicious intent to effect undeserved punishment, I'm now demanding that you restore all my posting privileges and we'll call this matter a wash. This new wrinkle definitely points to a hateful agenda on the part of your staff that they are willing to execute through disgraceful deceit. If you move ahead with a punishment action after hearing lies about my having made "threats", you'll be actually condoning those phony and demeaning "threat" claims. N.B.

Megerflit (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 * You know, for someone who was complaing about being misquoted a few comments above you really aren't any better. The correct quote from theinstantmatrix is; Can any admin revoke TPA privileges for Megerflit? Looking at the talk page, I see nothing but personal attacks and threats mainly directed at admins who are involved with this user; this user is certainly WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm ... "complaing" ... obviously more of that mysterious, exclusive Wiki language.

Don't know what kind of game you're attempting to play here, chum, but this is an actual cut and paste of the "instantmatrix" message I have in my cache. Don't know if your entry is supposed to be some kind of weird "damage control" distraction but have a look at this:

Can you revoke TPA privileges for Megerflit (talk · contribs)? Looks like he's now just resorting to just threats on his talk page after the appeal got declined. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Now, is that plainly stated message really that indecipherable for ya, cupcake? I'll accept your apology for inferring that I somehow misread that pack of lies upon your reviewing it and understanding that it contends that I am "resorting to JUST threats since my appeal was declined". You do understand that "JUST threats" means "ONLY threats", don't you? So, according to this imaginative individual, ALL of the above text of mine is comprised of NOTHING BUT THREATS, right? I'd better get my first indication that someone among you people is a rational, thinking human and concerned with the reputation of the company real quick. An apology from you would be an excellent start. All this snark and the lame attempts at one-upmanship (like yours) have fallen quite flat. I suggest you start trying to turn this careening vehicle around, pronto. By the way, just in case the curious "alternate version" of the instantmatrix message you provided turns out to be an attempt to cover up the intentional lies contained in the original one, I already have a screenshot and witnesses that have seen the one I was issued. If it suddenly vanishes, it will just add grist for the mill. N.B.

Megerflit (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:No legal threats then redact the language threatening a lawsuit or you'll lose your ability to even edit this page. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:6165:1F7D:7635:5C2D (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You people are being very foolish by keeping up this steady assault and threats of undue punishment. I'm merely asking for someone in your outfit who isn't invested in this outrageous personal attack on me to make a simple peace gesture for all the nonsense I've endured since I made the supreme mistake of trying to make my Wikipedia entry more complete and correct. You folks are now spiraling completely out of control, and at this point, I am only asking for what I am (well past) due. Is there not one diplomatic, articulate, fair-minded person in your midst who can address this matter in a sane and sensible way? I have never seen such relentlessly bizarre, and now creepily "dodgy" behavior exhibited by any other well known online company. It is positively shameful. You restore my editing privilege and have the individual who recently pulled the "Nyah, Nyah" routine on me above apologize and we'll be good. I'll fold my tent and vanish into the night. I'll even erase all my entries above. I'm content with the current bio page and certainly don't want to spend another moment in this treacherous snake pit. If you, on the other hand, continue with the dishing out of unearned punishments and restrictions, even if you wipe me completely from the site, it will cause me to become wholly dedicated to seeking some serious satisfaction. All you have to do is prove that you're not soulless monsters and show some common consideration, for the first instance ever, to this creaky, harmless retirement aged individual. N.B.
 * Ahem; here. You cannot fake a diff. For fair-mindedness, please read the end of my comment at WP:AN/I. I have offered you the opportunity to present evidence for your case. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From Wikipedia's rules regarding "Legal Threats":

"The user should not be prevented from using their talk page until reasonable attempts have been made to open a civil discussion."

Yeah, I know ... in my case you'll make an exception. So, where's that "reasonable attempt at civil discussion" I'm entitled to? Funny, I've been requesting this same thing for a while now and it's still a ghost town on here. Even though it's a stated rule. What's wrong, fellas ... can't stomach the idea of being civil to someone that you're busy manufacturing infractions against? Why not get your minds right and "try a little tenderness". All your "Shock and Awe" tactics have miserably misfired so far. N.B.

TPA
Please remove talk page access as user is making legal threats. Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You had better read my prior statement before you take this foolish action. All these messages are going to matter in the long run.
 * I've only asked repeatedly that you have any competent representative contact me to smooth this out and I've stated a strong willingness to engage in a civil exchange, which your own rules clearly say I'm entitled to before having my talk privileges ended. You're gonna look pretty ridiculous trying to justify taking this harsh road after all my attempts at outreach. You're so inexplicably obsessed with continuing this absurd assault that you're clearly bending and violating your own policies to achieve your unwholesome goals. Not wise, gents. N.Bougas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megerflit (talk • contribs)

September 2017
I have revoked your talk page access because of the long string of insults you have hurled against other editors since you were blocked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)