User talk:TraviaNightmare

everybody im travian :D

i just joind so dont start hazing me :P

September 2010
Do not remove other people's comments from article talk pages. There was no reason the IPs comments should have been removed. You have already been informed, and your previous removal of them was reverted as well. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To provide some detail on this, this was the original edit in which you removed the IPs comments, this was the original, though rather direct notice that the IP left you, instructing you not to remove talkpage comments, and this was your second removal of the talkpage comments, which included the edit summary: im undoing your edit in good faith my friend please dont take offense i have slaved over a reply to you and sent it please reply.


 * Edit summaries are not replies to discussion. If you have something to add to the discussion, add it on the talkpage. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With regards to your reply on my talkpage:
 * It is not a contest to see how many people you can get to view that specific article.
 * The opinion was not irrelevant. It was a claim that contradicted another claim that needs to be addressed. The IP was not making the talk page look like a forum. The IP was raising a perfectly reasonable issue.  Read WP:SOURCE.
 * Exactly where did I threaten you? Please provide a diff.
 * Hazardous Matt (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding your last reply on my talk page, you really need to disengage this WP:BATTLE you're crusading for. If by returning to Wikipedia with "patriotic warriors" means you intend to storm the article with individuals who are going to follow what you've been doing and delete legitimate contributions and talk page comments from other editors, you will quickly run into problems.  That will not be looked upon well by the administrative staff.  I see WP:AGF being mentioned a lot, however deleting talk page comments that contradict what you feel should be in the article is the exact opposite of acting in good faith.
 * This is not a war. Stop calling it a war.  Don't consider yourself a warrior.  This is an encyclopedia.  It's a collaborative effort.  You do not get to dictate who says what on the talk pages.  That's a violation of WP:OWN.  You don't get to unilaterally decide a specific book is not a reliable source over a website you like to visit.  That's a violation of WP:RS.  And posting links that you insist people read before editing the article because you believe it will change the editor's perspective on the subject is bordering on violating WP:NPOV.  And as you've been told numerous times, stop insulting and threatening people, which is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL.
 * Consider the advice that you've been given by several editors. And I mean consider it.  Re-read the advice.  Think about what's being said.  You've already been given a blatant warning below.  I don't believe that editor is going to take the time to give you another.  Step back from the article.  Stop obsessing over it.  I strongly recommend you consider the way you edit Wikipedia.  That's assuming you intend to make serious contributions.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Please note that you (and the IP) have both reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours. Wikipedia has a policy called the 3 revert rule, which you can read about here. In short, please note that you may not revert the article again today. If you do so, you will be reported for edit warring. For future reference, you can also be reported for edit-warring even if you do not cross the "bright line" of 3 reverts in one day. But crossing the bright line is strictly forbidden except in cases of reverting vandalism. Per WP:VANDAL, the items you are reverting are absolutely not vandalism--they are a piece of content you disagree with. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead of reverting. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop
Do not refer to the ethnicity of other editors, as you did again on Talk:Bill Goldberg. You do not know our ethnicity, nor if you did is it relevant. Second, do not threaten to disrupt the article. Please read WP:CIVIL. You are not being civil, and your actions are making it extremely difficult to edit collaboratively. I will reply to your points about the source and quote itself on the article's talk page. But you are treating this like it's some sort of WP:BATTLE. It is not. No one is fighting you. We are merely trying to make the article better. Perhaps we disagree on how to do this--disagreement is natural in collaborative work. If you cannot work collaboratively, then your contributions to the project will not be welcomed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Since you have now reverted the page 4 times in 24 hours, a violation of the 3-revert rule, I have reported you to WP:3RRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule and exhibiting a battlefield mentality on Bill Goldberg. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

everybodee im travian :D

i just joind so dont start hazing me :P

Bill Goldberg
Hey there! I read your request, and I'll be on it soon. I want to take a longer look at the edit histories between all the people involved before I make any statements on the editing wars.

You might be interested to know that the 173 record is not kayfabe, and was calculated by hardcore fans who watched endless hours of TV, pay-per-view, house shows, to compile the record. The book citation is useful because it shows how unprepared WCW was for the obsessive smart marks who read internet forums and used their long schedules to create running records like this. It does not disprove the record in any way, however.

Check out this piece of news on Goldberg!-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Post-Block discussion
Okay, first, I did warn you before requesting the block. I pointed you to the exact policy, and that policy is absolutely clear--never, unless stopping vandalism (which you were not), revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Good faith is not an exception. I didn't want to block you, but I had to request it, because you were continue to edit war. My hope was that a very short block (24 hours is, you have to admit, a pretty short time to be away from WP) would help you calm down and change your approach. Unfortunately, your comments on Goldberg's talk page indicate you have not.

Please do read through all of WP:Edit warring, because I want you to be 100% clear that edit warring is simply not allowed. There are specific steps we can take if you are not happy with the compromise I have offered. Specifically, the next step, if you insist that my compromise version is wrong, is to create a Request for Comment. An RfC is basically a request to the community at large to come look at the dispute, and help provide new ways of looking at the article, provide possible compromises, and give opinions on the various options. If you ask me here or on the article's talk page, I will happily create an RfC on this issue.

Also, you asked for my help in citing sources. I will happily do that as well. Please tell me what sources you want to cite, and I will show you how to format them. It would probably be easiest if you put the sources here, so that I can teach you here and not clog up the talk page.

Finally, please understand, I really am not trying to fight with you. I really do want you to continue to help edit this article. But you do need to learn that editing on Wikipedia is not a battle, a war, or a wrestling match. If you ever feel like you've "won," because your side is in the article, that probably means you did something wrong. We only win by working together, collaboratively, to make the best possible encyclopedia. Since we all have opinions, this invariably means that some of our opinions will not be reflected in the article, because the article must reflect all significant, reliable opinions on a subject. Please, please, drop the idea that this is a battle. Having done this for a while, I guarantee that if you continue to treat the article as a battle, you will keep getting blocked, for longer and longer periods of time. It's perfectly acceptable to argue, dispute, and disagree. But we don't fight, war, or battle. Please. You obviously know a lot about the subject, so I'd rather have you here and providing your knowledge in a cooperative way than eventually removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for gross personal attacks and continuing to edit in bad faith. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether you have edited in bad faith is not very relevant, as it is not the reason for the block. Apart from the personal attack which was the direct cause of the block, you indicate an unwillingness to cooperate or consider the opinions of other editors (your view is "the correct one" and if anyone else posts anything you disagree with then it is "irrelevant", and you have the right to remove it). You are repeatedly belligerent and uncivil. You have even indicated that you view the process of interaction with other editors as a "war", and unambiguously indicated your intention of trying to forcibly impose you view in the face of disagreements. You have indicated an intention of introducing meat puppets to support you in this aim. Under the circumstances a one week block seems if anything rather minimal. I strongly suggest that you spend the rest of the week carefully considering how to edit in a more cooperative spirit, so that when you return after the week you can fit into the way we work on Wikipedia, and make constructive contributions. It would be a pity if you turned down this opportunity, and persisted in your belligerent approach until you were blocked indefinitely: I hope you will not make that mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above request is too long and too confused for me to review. Please see WP:GAB.  Sandstein   18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TriviaNightmare, may I make some suggestions for you? It's a lot of reading, I know, but it's important
 * Read WP:BATTLEGROUND - Summary: Wikipedia is not a battleground. We're here to edit together.
 * Read WP:CIVIL - Summary: be nice. Don't say something to someone you wouldn't say in front of your mother.
 * Read WP:EW - Summary: lots of reversion will get you blocked.
 * Read the process on dispute resolution - Summary: discuss the options on the talk page before you revert
 * Read WP:MASTADON - Summary: if you find yourself getting angry, take an hour away. The world won't end if you don't get your version immediately.
 * If you promise you've read and you will absolutely never violate any of our above policies and guidelines I might be willing to unblock you a few days early, as a show of good faith to you that we want you as an editor. Sometimes, it's easy to let your temper get the best of you, and if you let it do so, there are consequences for you being allowed to be here. Do you understand all this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In answer to "why are you accusing me of "going to use meatpuppets" what are you trying to accuse me of?" I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am simply referring to what you yourself have announced. In this edit you unambiguously state that you intend to bring other editors in to support your campaign. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an Administrator, but I highly recommend you re-factor your unblock request to something that complies with WP:GAB. I don't expect any Administrator will wish to read through that. Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator, and I confirm this. Not read.  Not saying this to be mean, just saying that I'm not going to spend the time churning through a run on sentence on the off chance of lifting a 1 week block that we're 3 days into.  If you were indeff'd or something, maybe.  Pare it down. Syrthiss (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock
OK, I've read your unblock request, and I'm going to unblock you, because you've promised to be more civil. Something of note:
 * Before you even mentioned the bit about user adoption, it was something that occurred to me as well. You could definitely use for adoption. Please see Adopt-a-User. User:Qwyrxian seems to be quite willing to help, as you can see below and above.
 * Frankly, your writing style betrays a young age and lack of experience (we have some 12 year olds that write better than that, but it's OK, I was a terrible writer when I was young). Please, before making any edits to articles that involve your own writing, go through with the adoption thing.
 * Thank you for considering everything I wrote. But further personal attacks attacks and edit warring will not be tolerated. If another user just reverts your edits and you find that inappropriate, you can seek dispute resolution. If that's too complicated, try posting at the help desk; they can answer any questions you have, and are very friendly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to above statement
Let me just change what I said one little bit--I'm not going to provide you with any help if you continue to attack other users. So if you want my help, you have to promise to stop the personal attacks. I believe that basic civility is a fundamental necessity for working on Wikipedia; if you don't have that, then no amount of me helping you with references, dispute resolution, etc., will matter, because you'll just end up indefinitely banned eventually anyway. So hopefully after the week is done, you'll be ready to start editing productively, and we can then work together to improve both your editing skills and the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see (I think) that you promised in your unblock request not to make personal attacks. I am still willing to help.  Since the Goldberg article seems to be your most serious concern, I recommend that you should come back to the talk page (not the article) and discuss the source in question as well as the phrasing in the lead.  Later today, I'll try to add a new section to that talk page to help clarify the various points we (that is, all interested editors) need to discuss.  Of course, in the meanwhile, you are welcome to ask me any questions here or on my talk page. Lastly, I can understand, if you don't want to be "adopted" by me (I'm not actually a part of the formal adoption program) because of our history, in which case I recommend you follow Magog's request and see if you can find a mentor at Adopt-a-User. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)