User talk:Shakzor

Edit Warring
Hi there. I see you have been edit warring with me. Such behaviour is not welcome on wikipedia. Please engage on the talk page as requested if you wish to continue to make such changes. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This edit war has been bought up at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring duffbeerforme (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey man - I support the EL's and I notice from reading your numerous posts you do as well. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Angry_Video_Game_Nerd_episodes and place your comment at the request for comments section at the very bottom to voice your opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anber (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that area is meant for admins to post their comments, though I do not see any of them doing so. Shakzor (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good
Shakzor (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to accept consensus regarding the links. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up! Don't let the deletionist Nazis get to you! Don't let them bully you into submission - there is no consensus. Many are unhappy with the changes. You are right, my friend - keep fighting the good fight. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:RE3screenshot01.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RE3screenshot01.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Armbrust Talk  Contribs  17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Armbrust. Thanks for the little inforblurb.  That was my first image upload attempt and I was still going through the process.  I have done as much as I can see at the moment, and if you are familiar with such things and want to give it a once-over, I would consider it helpful.  Thank you.  Shakzor (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes
Please stop edit warring against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines at List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. If you continue your battleground behavior at the above article, you will be reported and probably blocked for your tendentious editing. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus in that article. Shakzor (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you not? The only users for the links are you, IPs and other new users who don't know policy. C T J F 8 3  23:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an idea: Let's ban coloreds, gays, and females from voting in national elections; because they clearly do not know how to vote properly, and we do not want their opinions anyway.  It is distressing that you so readily disregard the opinions of "IPs" and "new users" as not knowing policy.  These people represent the outside opinion, the visitors to wikipedia who expect to see one thing and are alarmed when they see the opposite.  They may be fans of the subject matter of the page in question, that is why they were visiting it; but they tend to be people with a more truly neutral opinion than all your long time users and administrators.  If you want a litmus test of what people expect from wikipedia, you should pay a bit more attention to these people before automatically dismissing their opinions.  Admittedly, you must first sort through the trolls and troublemakers, of which there will always be some; but beyond them are real people with legitimate questions as to why an article such as this one is lacking in so basic an informational source as links to relevant external content.  This article is directly related to off-site content, and many others are the same in this way.  If you examine the article from a truly neutral view, and actually pay attention to it, you will see that much of the information contained there within becomes useless once you remove all the links to external content, as there is no complete summary of the information contained.  If you don't want the opinions of "IPs" represented on the site, then ban them from editing entirely, as they evidently have nothing worthwhile to contribute.  If you do not want "ELs" in a page that warrants them, then delete the page entirely as being unfit for inclusion in this elite little clubhouse of yours, as the page is castrated without them. Shakzor (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said I don't want IPs to give opinions, in fact, I acknowledge the make great additions to Wikipedia. The problem comes when we have trolling IPs and other users who say they are going to do something, no matter what, and will only be stopped by a block. That is where the problem comes in. C T J F 8 3  16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like backpedalling to me. Your previous statement fairly clearly says that you do not care for the opinions of IP users when it comes to consensus.  The easiest way of winning a vote, is either by declaring that everyone has to vote your way, or by dismissing or disallowing voters who will not agree to vote your way.  That is how a dictatorship works.  I am aware that wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not meant to be a dictatorship, either. Shakzor (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly a responsible person who sees a vote of "It doesn't hurt", "It's useful" or on the other side "It looks like crap to list", "Adds too much size to the article" should all be disregarded as they are opinions and have no policy to back up the rationale. C T J F 8 3  16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does policy come from, if not from the opinions of users? Granted, there are people who do not voice their opinions well beyond "it sucks", but the real consensus is that the people who use that page for information are not seeing the information there that they expect to see.  All I am saying is that they should not be automatically ignored just because they have not been around for years quoting policy. Shakzor (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy comes from consensus, not one or two users. You're missing my big point, of if users, yourself included, would follow the consensus even if they disagree, there would be no problem. If a consensus turns out to be add the links, I'm not going to revert it, just to prove a point, like you, and the IPs are going to/and have done. C T J F 8 3  16:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not defend my methods, but I will stand by them. I am not willing to let this issue go as it is.  The way I see it, the removal of the links is improper, I will work within the system to bring them back, but if that fails I will also continue to edit until I am blocked or the article is fully protected so I am unable to alter it.  At that point, it is no longer my concern.  Think of it as a negotiation table after a protest.  The people protest the government because they want change, the government invites the protesters to the bargaining table, the protesters come, the government offers them a crappy bargain, the protesters will go back and keep protesting.  That is what I am doing. Shakzor (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're turning Wikipedia into a battleground for your agenda, and are disrupting it to prove a point, which is exactly why your comments should be disregarded as you are not looking for a consensus, you are looking to get your way. But that's fine, you can be blocked. C T J F 8 3  16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the blocking threats. As I have already said:  So be it.  You fail to grasp the scope of my comparison to a protest.  If the system is broken, then the system must be changed.  People who are willing to fight for that change should not sit down when they are told to.  The "other side" will always see this as an insurgency or a rebellion, but the mitigating factor that legitimizes a rebellion, is victory. Shakzor (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You fail to grasp you can't always get your way. But this is going nowhere, so this is my last post. C T J F 8 3  16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you can't always get your way; that does not mean you should never try. Law and morality are not 100% congruous, something that is legal is not automatically moral, and something that is moral is not automatically legal.  If you would not practice civil disobedience here, then I do not imagine you would practice it in the real world, and that makes you one of those who would sit by and tolerate injustice.  You have to fight for your beliefs, otherwise they, and you, are not worth your salt. Shakzor (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true in the real world, but again, this isn't a battleground. C T J F 8 3 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said it earlier on this page, but I wholeheartedly support Shakzor on this. CTJF83, you and a few others seem to think there is a consensus just because you say so. Shakzor is not the only registered user against the change, and a number of IP users (like me) are unhappy. While edit warring may not be the right thing to do, you have to admit, it got your attention and we (finally!) have a request for comments in the article. One of the critisms of Wikipedia, from Oliver Kamm, states, "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." Sound familiar?
 * And Shakzor - once again, don't let them bully you into submission - there is no consensus. Keep fighting the good fight. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR again as you wanted
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This edit war has been bought up at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.duffbeerforme (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Thank you very much. I wonder, though, who is really edit-warring with who. Shakzor (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring at List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes and statements of intent to continue same. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Please note that while this block has no specific date of expiration, it is not intended to be infinite. Aside from this instance of insisting on your own view against consensus, you do good work here. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you mention consensus, as this is the very reason I was reverting edits. If you are not already, please familiarize yourself with the situation over on the AVGN episode list talk page.  We had a consensus, developed over the course of a month, to keep the links; which was promptly ignored by Herostratus when he closed the RfC and declared against consensus that the links should be removed. Shakzor (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RE3screenshot01.png
 Thanks for uploading File:RE3screenshot01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)