This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. (block log · contributions · discussion at ANI)

Hi CreecregofLife! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Explain how I'm being disruptive. If anything you were the one being disruptive by mass reverting edits that had credible sourcing--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all you are citing is a photo that supposedly was taken on the last night shoot. It says nothing about when this was, and it does not say it was the last day of production, or even the last day of filming. So it does not support what you are adding. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm citing the text, sir. There is text in the Instagram post. By the series co-creator. To say it does not support is incredibly incorrect.--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Instagram is unverified, so cannot be used, regardless. Keep this up and you will be blocked. Amaury • 17:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that "Production on the second season wrapped in March 2021" ? Or anything like that? I don't see it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you asserted the removal of the citation. The text was there. Is your entire hangup that I put "Production wrapped" over "Shooting wrapped"? That's incredibly petty--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that the source says nothing about anything wrapping, other than the last night shoot. And it doesn't even say when this was. So you can't use it as a source to say anything. Unfortunately this is the difficulty with using something like Instagram as a source, regardless of whose Instagram account. Most of what you want to use it as is your interpretation of what was posted, not what a reliable source actually says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm not going to argue anymore, I'm going to leave it alone. Just please don't call me disruptive just because you don't like an edit. Use your words, not an accusatory template.--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is disruptive is not your edit, but repeatedly putting it back in. It's always best to discuss first, then you can understand what the problem might be, avoid edit wars, and everyone can remain friends. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then why didn't Amaury, who decided to mass revert two users and their initial message was the unhelpful and very vague "Do it right"? Doesn't he have the same responsibility?--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've already suggested to Amaury that getting annoyed isn't the best way to solve what amounts to a simple misunderstanding. But we're all human, sometimes we aren't in our best mood and sometimes edit summaries can sound terser than they were meant. I'm guilty of that sometimes too. The take-way lessons for everyone are use the talk pages, always assume good faith and stay cool. Don't let this put you off editing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to South Park: Post Covid‎, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Kpddg (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a reason in the edit summary. I stated that the comparison being made to justify the merger wasn’t accurate--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Given that you were named in the comment you deleted, it was especially inappropriate of you to delete it. If you don't feel it belongs, you should respond asking for another editor to delete it. If anything, by deleting it yourself you may have made the complaint appear more valid. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, TVSGuy here, and like you, I happened to edit Wikipedia articles because sometimes there are notable things or otherwise viral. I heard you recently joined in and you are happen to be a fan of MCU series because I do happen to watch that too. And so asking are you new to Wikipedia and you learn so fast? Just asking. Thanks and hope you have a good time editing. TVSGuy (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was previously editing anonymously. Wiki has existed for over 15 years. Wikipedia isn’t the only wiki site, and even when you just take a look around the editor it’s easy to pick up--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh understand your skills learning. If you are really into editing, could you not remove any of the highlights or posts or contributions that I did, just because it is also notable or anything related? Thanks. I dont think I am into this disagreement but I am also doing my best. I just don't like my edits being removed for some reason claiming other reasons, but its facts are everywhere and its the truth. Thanks. TVSGuy (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can’t I edit your contributions? Why are your contributions off-limits?--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that my contributions are off limits, I mean I can apperciate yours, though sometimes it was more relevant and usable and yet some were overlooked because of the least notable highlight. Even if it means to help one other, I can also help you as well, and that is also open to solving a problem and skills learning. If I make a mistake, I apperciate if you can explain the mistake and tell me what can I do to do better. I know you have learn from IP addresses and also the basics and that why people learn in a different way. Thanks. TVSGuy (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is so fast I also never experience this kind of speed that you gave. TVSGuy (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some of the Showbuzz Daily rescues were done by copying the entire article into Google Docs, and then using Find and Replace in order to do the same action in bulk, carefully constructing the references without them, and then pasting the entire article back into the editing window--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Gladly you can, but not too overboard. I will do my best on my site as well. Welcome aboard! TVSGuy (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will also want to include some notable changes or notable first on some of the highlights such as season revamps or changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2021 in Amerocan television, would that be OK to include as well? TVSGuy (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something's a first doesn't mean it's notable.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never see you so fast on replying, normally I expect this slow but you reply so fast because you free? Hmmmmm. TVSGuy (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very late where I am. I'm not interested in continuing the discussion.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, we shall never talk again. I may don't like you (and what I dont like at all), but we have our own ways. Thank you. TVSGuy (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help change colors, based on [[1]]. Thanks you. Edmyoa (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand, sorry--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed with the "Moved to" in Planeta U if you did, someone will blocked from editing without further notice. User:Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to threaten me like this? Mickey Mouse Clubhouse didn’t move to Disney Junior, it originated from there.--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still. That was give you a warning, don't removed "moved to" without further notice. User:Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning, removed the "Moved to" and bot will block you from editing. User:Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except I didn’t remove the column. I removed incorrect information.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know. User:Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you threaten to have me blocked for it? I did nothing wrong--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you will eventually be blocked permanently. Writing unreasonable edit summaries and edit warring can only go unnoticed for a while. ภץאคгöร 18:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be blocked permanently on a first offense. You removed content without citing sources, making it appear that your edits are entirely opinion-based. If it’s so unreasonable for you to cite your sources then I’m not the problem editor here--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above, it isn't actually the first. Your actions are much more irrational than I first thought. I already quoted a review for visual effects that contradicts what is written in the lead and removed the unsourced praisals that were mentioned in the lead, for the purpose of MOS:PUFFERY. Read the "Reception" section and maybe you will understand... ภץאคгöร 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t quote any review pertaining to Holland’s performance, and again, you didn’t state which sources were the ones that didn’t call Holland a standout. If anyone’s unsourced, it’s you.--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't know what to write. Really. I don't know. Can you point multiple sources, or just one review that says Holland was the standout and was better than anyone else? If you can't, that means that it should be removed from the article. That's how it goes. It is as simple as that. Not like you described above. And calling other editors' edits "vandalizing" and "unsourced"? LOL. ภץאคгöร 18:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to prove that they don’t. You made the original claim that they don’t, and until then you’ve removed sourced information. And where does it say I can’t accurately describe your edits? Because right now you haven’t proven otherwise.--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JoanHeart (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, what I am suggesting is that you take a bit of time and try to find a compromise or solution at the talk page before jumping straight to reporting someone unnecessarily. We were able to sort this out super quickly once we had the conversation so it is actually a great example of how the system can work. Also, you stated or implied multiple times during this whole episode that you were a new editor supposedly being bullied or taken advantage of by an experienced editor which is quite disingenuous considering you have confirmed at this talk page that you have been editing Wikipedia anonymously and are not as new as your account suggests. I recommend either being more upfront about that or trying not to imply that you are a new and inexperienced editor in the future. You clearly have a good understanding of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and worked well with us during the discussion once you focused on the content rather than supposed personal/behavioural issues so I think you should be fine moving forward if you take the right lessons from this whole thing. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was very careful with my wording. I never said I wasn’t experienced, just less-tenured. I’d only been editing a couple months before I registered. If I explicitly stated I was a new user at some point, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to try and portray myself as such. I wasn’t trying to play dirty or for sympathy on falsities. And as for the talk page, well I think I was pretty clear on my frustrations in the report. I can guarantee I would’ve followed you there had you gotten there first. I've already had bad experiences with response times. A couple topics are still waiting for responses on a certain page, and those topics were made weeks ago. One of them probably hit a month. It kinda buried the trust and confidence in that department. The two topics in particular aren’t even an issue per se, it’s gameplanning, and I was hoping someone would notice naturally, instead of having to come to them, barely having an idea of who to pick and how. --CreecregofLife (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that frustration and admit that I am not the best at responding promptly as I have been very busy off-wiki of late. Thankfully we were able to get this one sorted out pretty quickly. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at We Baby Bears instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:We Baby Bears and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:We Baby Bears, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but @Robert McClenon: the main page as it exists isn’t in the state it’s supposed to be. It’s just the episode list table. The draft is a more complete and structurally sound version. I didn’t want to copy and paste and circumvent the process.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have reverted you. Please do not engage in edit warring. Editors who repeatedly do so risk being blocked, as you have previously been warned. Thank you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren’t they at equal risk when they don’t have consensus? Consensus has to be reached before the image is changed. The person who changed it allowed reversions if objected to, and I objected. I am not edit warring, I was part of the talk page discussion, and there was no consensus--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you have discussed it on the talk page. What I noticed was that you are the only editor reverting it back to the 2010 image. Multiple editors including User:Stephen (who took care of the image change on the main page) reverted your image change. As you can see, the main page image is not the 2010 image. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted once again. At this point, I don't know how you can take the position that you are not engaged in edit warring. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because they didn’t read the talk page. There was no consensus to change it away from the 2010 image, and the one who pushed for the image change has done so while completely ignoring entire users in order to steamroll past opposition. They have been incredibly aggressive on the talk page. It was implemented in under 8 hours from the proposal. They were asked to prove claims that would back up their claims that it was a suitable image change, and instead they got angrier. I refuse to believe that should be honored.--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because they didn’t read the talk page. I would not be so sure of that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik and CreecregofLife: (edit conflict) Hi guys. Paul, I understand you have indeed read the talkpage, yeah? Since CreecregofLife seems to think their interpretation of the discussion is correct - and doesn't see anything wrong with reverting the same edit 4 times (compared to 3 users reverting them back) - is WP:CIR an issue here? Kingsif (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted twice. I made some mistakes on the first reversion. That doesn’t make three different reversions. I refuse to have Kingsif partake in the conversation if he’s going to be as dishonest as he was on White’s talkpage. The fact that he’s trying to invoke CIR is a blatant attempt to undercut my position, not based on my argument, but a direct attack on character. This is what I mean when I say he’s trying to steamroll opposition. He’s not playing with good faith, he’s using incredibly dirty tactics. @Alaska4Me2: please help me out--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<after edit conflict> You reverted one, two, three times. You assumed that User:Stephen and I did not read the talk page when I can assure you that I did, and my guess from Stephen's edit summary was that he also did. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you also read WP:CANVASS re. your begging of only one other user from the discussion, especially the one who accused me of stalking them for nothing more than asking a legitimate question and then brought drama they started at another article there. I've taken the courtesy of adding below the talkpage discussion (my comments are in yellow because of an add-on I have) - how the hell did I "steamroll" anything as you have said in every single message, and how the hell is there not a general agreement? Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the attacks on character instead of actually proving your claims. I’m done with this conversation. It’s getting far too toxic.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. Are you doing alright? LittleFinn9 (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you reverted my edit but... even in its previous form, when it was a redirect, it would have been acceptable. Now, that a LOT of information about the show is available, it now has a page. I actually only added that link to prepare the page for my split of content from various pages to create that page, which is a clearly a show in its own right. But, I am excited for the reboot/revival, even though I just finished season 1 of the original series. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you let me know. I figured it was being worked on, but I searched for a draft and nothing came up in the auto fill dropdown, so I didn’t think it was time, but clearly that wasn’t the case.--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TartarTorte. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Amy Schneider, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you for contributing to the article and trying to find an accurate DOB. Your efforts are definitely appreciated, however on wikipedia there are pretty strict standards on what is considered reliable or not when it comes to living people and also how much personal information of living people should be made public. If you want to discuss further please feel free to respond here and tag me by using ((u|TartarTorte)) in your reply or ((ping|TartarTorte)) in your reply. TartarTorte 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I am terribly sorry I left this message on the wrong page. TartarTorte 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was gonna say, I described exactly what I did in the edit summary. Of course I got what you were going for, very well intentioned, but it wasn’t I who put the source. Should I have been so trusting? Maybe not, but it wasn’t what I was there for.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let WP:AN gaslight you. Yes, you were no doubt being trolled by LittleFinn9. I'm sorry the AN thread makes it seem like no one cares about that. Ponyo and Bbb23 are, literally, an order of magnitude or more better at identifying and dealing with socks, but if they aren't around someday, feel free to ask me for help if a suspicious new account miraculously finds your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, and the offer. Very glad to have an ally around here--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll keep an eye on your page also. My theory is to keep one known account active and monitor it rather than sending the sock master underground. The basic problem is that Wikipedia doesn’t have an effective strategy for countering Sybil attacks. If the user is unblocked everyone’s going to keep an eye on them and they’re not gonna be able to use that account anywhere near you. Moreover if they create some other sock accounts to harass you Checkuser can compare those socks to the known account and ID them very quickly. Of course it would be better if we could block the person permanently but we just don’t have the technology to do that today. On the flipside there’s always a chance that the person isn’t actually the sock we think they are and they might reform and become a decent editor. My first edits to Wikipedia 17 years ago were disruptive and I turned into a productive user. I always keep this in mind. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the corrections to your comment, and seeing "at its dew", that's a very amusing (what I assume to be) dictation interpretation and it gave me quite the laugh. Obviously I don't need bodyguards or pity, but I do know we're all on the same level here and I'm not being talked down to--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Auto correct and dictation are my best friends, as an Internet comedian. Well, I’m sure you can handle yourself but I didn’t want you to think your concerns were being ignored. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Tony Hale, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WP:BLP / WP:DOB speak for themselves. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir that is not an answer. You were asked to cite where the violation is, and you did not provide it--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CreecregofLife, if you are restoring biographical statistics such as birth dates to articles, please ensure you are including reliable sources per WP:BLP and WP:DOB. Coud you please explain what source you used for this date of birth as well as this one?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I needed one. The removal had no citation, therefore it was an unexplained removal. Just shouting a rulebook at someone without citing what part of the policy is allegedly violated doesn't mean the policy has been violated--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you mean by "the removal had no citation". The material was removed because it had no citation and the policy for the removal was included in the edit summary, so it wasn't unexplained. If you will be restoring unsourced content removed per WP:BLP, the burden is on you to provide the reference. Please remember that for future edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was completely explained in the edit summary. Perhaps you should read them. Your assertion of "unexplained removal" is BS. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should figure out what an explanation is. An insufficient explanation is the opposite of a complete explanation. Your tone is unacceptable. You didn't explain the removal at all. You basically said "Google it" instead of stating exactly what part of the policy was being violated--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) CreecregofLife, there was no request to Google it. Toddst1 provided direct links to the main policy (WP:BLP) and the specific applicable section of the policy (WP:DOB). Did you read them? (Serious question, not meant to be condescending in any way). If the reason was unclear after reviewing the policy, you could have asked for clarification. Regardless, I assume you're aware of both W:DOB and WP:BURDEN now so that we can all go back to doing good work?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bro - you need to figure it out. I'm not here to spoon feed you. If you don't understand an edit, don't undo it - especially if you don't have a clue about the relevant policies. Now you're all indignant? MIind your own ham-fisted editing. GMAFB. Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to diffuse this...this isn't helping.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blazing Samurai. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep reverting sourced content and treating THR as the be-all end-all. You can't just accuse someone of edit warring while you blatantly disregard the sources that are there and the logic provided. You have no source that explicitly states that Blazing Samurai is no longer inspired by Blazing Saddles, and do not have consensus to remove such. You sir are the one edit warring--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State your view on the article talk page, starting with the basics so that a new editor joining the discussion has all necessary context. I’ll watch and try to help. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone attempts to turn a talkpage into a forum to debate something, the best thing to do is either ignore them or treat it as a user conduct issue (removing, warning, or reporting, as appropriate). By engaging with them, you risk going against WP:NOTFORUM yourself. In the case of your exchange with the IP at Talk:Amy Schneider, I've just removed y'all's exchange, since it didn't really have anything to do with improving the article. Also, please be aware that there are some heightened expectations of editors on the topics of gender and sexuality:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I should have been better, and I will be better should a similar situation arise.--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; as you did at Toonturama and Planeta U, you may be blocked from editing without further notice by the bot/admin. (User talk: Angel Arreguin Hernandez) 22:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You previously admitted you were maintaining false information. Give me one good reason why it shouldn’t be removed--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I hate you while you removed "Moved to" all day of 24/7. Unacceptable! (User talk: Angel Arreguin Hernandez) 23:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it doesn’t make sense for the content--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bro why?! I hate it for doing that! (User talk: Angel Arreguin Hernandez) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why. I’ll restate one of the examples: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Handy Manny didn’t “move” to the Disney outlets, they originated from them.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Oh, you are absolutely right thought. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Dora and Diego originating from Nickelodeon channels. While Pluto is relatively new, they were still on the Nick Jr. linear channel in the intervening years. I hope your admission means you’re finally understanding why there doesn’t need to be a “Moved to” section.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; as you did at Toonturama, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. User:2603:8080:500:2c5d:a439:2e00:facf:21a 02:28, February 5, 2022(UTC)

Don't tell that user what to do, you always being a insulting. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you did something bad about you dispute editing to that user again, every again. You will also be blocked from editing. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is the IP has reverted three users, cursed one out, and insisted on keeping broken English. I’m in the clear--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that three IP users gives me a headache for not be understanding. --Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Fungies!. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. A non-verified Twitter is not a reliable source, and either way the creator doesn't speak for the network. Magitroopa (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seniority doesn’t make you right. Do not call it edit warring when you are the disruptive editor. You do not have consensus to make the edit you did.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Ignoring what is being told to you and continuing to edit war will likely lead to a block, especially considering all the past warnings you've received... I suggest you heed this (and past warnings) and actually discuss any issues rather than resort to your own means. Magitroopa (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not your first time trying to add information to an article using an unverified social media account, as noted by this previous warning. Please understand that you cannot go around trying to using a random social media account to verify your claims, even if it supposedly is their 'official' account (which is why we use verified accounts for sourcing). Magitroopa (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to listen, acknowledge fault, or heed your own advice. I am not edit warring, I am reverting a disruptive editor. Just because I oppose you does not mean I am an edit warrer. Accusing me of edit warring is you trying to shed any responsibility for wrongdoing, and no attempt was made to approach this without aggression. You are placing all of your burdens on me when it is not my burden. As for the previous incident? Equally as aggressive and wrong as you are being now. Which means you are very very wrong. So, are you going to discuss it on the article talk page or not?--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your above comment clearly shows you don't understand what WP:BURDEN actually means. You continue to readd the information using a non-reliable source. This is not being disruptive, it's you not understanding how it works. Please use a reliable source next time or a report will be filed against you. I'm not continuing this, you need to discuss the issue on the talk page. Magitroopa (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So again you refuse to take the initiative. Burden of proof means nothing÷ to you, and senior members can’t be bothered to follow the same rules they impose on others. I tried to be cooperative, yet here you are, repeatedly refusing to take responsibility. You can claim not to need consensus, but you don’t have the proof. Therefore I can only take as much responsibility as you.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't start talking with respect without calling names, calling me racist, sexist and claming that everything you don't like is tantrum, I will have to report you to moderators. Try to be civil. Kanikosen (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you racist, you just took what I said to mean that. There is a stark difference. Harassing someone on their talk page is very uncivil--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CreecregofLife. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:ANI#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc.. Magitroopa (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreecregofLife, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Aoidh (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife, I'd recommend you take a break from the Pokemon RfC. What you are doing can be considered WP:BADGERING WP:BLUDGEONING, especially with some of those snide remarks. Leave your !vote and wait some time before engaging again in that discussion. I see a couple participants are already annoyed. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’ve walked away. Taken it off my watch list too--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop policing that page--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm sorry I got confused on the Peacemaker article and incorrectly reverted your edit. Glad we're both on the same page about spoilers. GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I’ve encountered similar confusions lately that resolved slightly slower, but it was good to see this one do so when it did--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Don't use any sources that base their reports on TMZ, especially not for contentious/personal claims that involve living people. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what this is in reference to. To me this seems like a random accusation and I have no idea what to avoid to not make the mistake again--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film)? TO my knowledge Colleen has never been on the billing block, and I"m not going to count her being credited on her own poster as being on the billing block. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main poster was updated, adding Tika and Colleen to the top of the poster with James, Jim, Ben and Idris--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power edits

I notice you are relatively new around here, so I will explain a few things to you.

1) In reference to the above edit summary I used as the section heading, the TWinkle widget is going to add warnings to the bottom of the monthly warning section (not necessarily to the end of the page, and we users have no control over that.) As a side note, this works well for most folks — as most editors don't have all the additional warnings that you seem to be accumulating this month.

2) The Twinkle notices I posted to you that you erased contained links to both the Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:List of Unreliable Sources. If you had availed yourself of these links, you may have saved both of us some time, as Metro is assuredly featured prominently on that list as a crappy source. I am also confused why you added back those other bad sources too.

3) Edit warring will get you blocked.

4) Just a personal observation: You seem to be struggling with the collaboritive aspect of editing Wikipedia, judging by what all is written above, and how you reacted to by edit. I didn't revert your edit to be an asshole. There was a definite, non-controversial reason for it. All you had to do was look at the link(s) I provided you. Instead, you chose to edit war over it. I would suggest if you work with people here (instead of what seems to be a pattern of regularly fighting with them), you'll get more of your points across. If you had looked at the number of edits I have, and number of years I have been editing here, you may have realized that our interaction may have been a learning opportunity for you. (Would it have hurt you to maybe ask on my talk page why I deleted those bad references instead of immediately starting to edit war?)

5) Most of the editors here are doing their best to improve the articles. You should pro-actively assume good faith and not negatively react to a disagreement in editing content or style. You'll make more friends, and you'll enjoy editing more.

Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had really wondered it, you could’ve done the same things you suggested to me, instead of edit warring--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there is confusion on the way it is written. The problem with the way it is written is that there is no set length for the season (a fluid fact) and that there is an asymmetrical amount across the board. Whereas my statement is a hard fact with not much fluidity to it. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is the individual number as of yesterday any less a solid fact than the uniform number of series? If more games are canceled there's going to be more series canceled. Did we count 2020 by number of series or number of games?--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, which I'm not sure because I don't normally edit BLP articles. Per WP:BRD, if you made an edit and were reverted, you must take it to talk page, not the one that reverts you. If you revert the reversion without a clear and simple argument in your edit summary, then you've started an edit war. The warning you deleted was correct. —El Millo (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to the other user’s talk page. Therefore, I did not edit war. False accusations and imbalanced treatment will not be tolerated. I am fed up, because I followed protocol, but the user who didn’t gets away scot-free because he has friends in the system. I have every right to delete incorrect warnings.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can also delete correct warnings in your talk page, that's not important. You reverted the original reversion by IJBall ([2]) with citation needed as a summary, which is incorrect because "citation needed" refers to unsourced content, not to matters of policy. That was an hour and a half before you went to the other editor's talk page ([3]). Only one minute after going to their talk page, you again reinstated your edit ([4]), either without waiting for an answer or without responding to the one given at that exact minute ([5]). So no, you did not follow protocol, according to which you should've gone to either the article's talk page or the other user's talk page right after they reverted you per WP:BRD, or reinstate just once according to WP:BRB either ammending your edit or providing a clear edit summary that may save both editors some time. You should also stop acting as if you were being treated unfairly in every conflict you are when it's you that constantly gets into trouble with different editors. —El Millo (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Citation needed” is a request for a citation on a claim. The claim was that “future events aren’t ledeworthy” which is an opinion that cited no policy. And he never cited policy. Why am I not allowed to act as if I’m being treated unfairly if I’m being treated unfairly? Not liking my edits doesn’t mean I’m being disruptive, yet every time, the other user is quick to claim I’m “edit warring” or “being disruptive” way earlier than policy states. Every time a conflict is started, why is it my burden to do all the work every time? And yes, it’s every time, because it’s very apparent that veteran users never get reprimanded when they should. You have to have valid reasons to call a user disruptive, and it’s not personal taste. I get laughed off for putting warnings on veteran users’ pages when it’s actually deserved. Because they think they’re above it all. I’m tired of having to defend myself from false accusations every time I follow the rules. Because it’s never enough.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed" is not used what you said it is, it's always used for sourcing content, not about backing up arguments with policy, as we have a ((Citation needed)) template used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation to a reliable source. I showed you that you didn't proceed correctly. IJBall told you Asked, and answered. Do not WP:EW in their edit summary ([6]) after you reverted them for the second time one minute after going to their talk page without even waiting for an answer, which is disruptive. You were finally directly called "disruptive" when you reverted for a third time ([7]) by Amaury, who said in their edit summary: WP:DE from disruptive user. Stop edit warring or a report will be filed against you.

You clearly do not understand what acting properly is if you still think you did. If you make an edit and are reverted, you are the one that has to go to the talk page, not the other editor. You did not initially do this. When you went to their talk page, you did not wait for an answer and went right back to revert them again. Then you started claiming that IJBall was the one that had to Take it up on the talkpage if you disagree and then reverted them once again saying: Issue unresolved; don't jump the gun, which is exactly why you shouldn't have gone back and kept reverting. Discussing is for the edit–reversion cycle to stop, it's not for you to post a message and then run to start an edit war. —El Millo (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is he not supposed to cite a source for his claim that the information wasn’t “ledeworthy”? Stop calling me an edit warrer because it’s clear your premise is faulty. I didn’t say or do a single thing wrong. IJBall broke the rules, and you’re calling it my fault, once again shifting all the burden onto me even after I already fulfilled it. You claim this is due to my lack of understanding, but haven’t proven I don’t understand anything. This isn’t going to go anywhere because you continually insist that I was edit warring. So if this is going to continue, those claims are going to have to stop.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say or do a single thing wrong Oh, so you stopped editing and started discussing after your edit was reverted? No. Did you actually wait until the issue was settled to continue editing? No. It seems you did do things wrong. If you don't understand that or aren't willing to admit that and therefore not willing to change, you won't be able to edit in a collaborative manner. And you always act as if it's everyone against you as if it was some sort of conspiracy.

Is he not supposed to cite a source for his claim that the information wasn’t “ledeworthy”? You keep missing the point. This is not about IJBall's edit summary. That could be taken explicitly from a policy, be based on policies, a common practice for BLPs, or even his opinion not based on anything, in which case you would've probably won the discussion easily. But you reinstated your edit, against WP:BRD. So there you broke the rules. After commenting on their talk page and reinstating your edit again, you violated WP:BRD for a second time by not waiting for the discussion to actually unfold. After giving up on arguing with you, IJBall said in their closing statement that their position is backed by long-standing common practice, so perhaps there is something that editors with more time here than you know that you don't. Perhaps that common practice is wrong and should be changed, but that would only be possible through discussion. —El Millo (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing common practice? Let's see Michael Keaton Jason Momoa Angus MacLane. IJBall continually restored his removal before the discussion was done. Everything you're accusing me of doing was his doing. It was not my burden in this case to go to the talkpage, but yet I went to one anyway Therefore he broke the rules. And you let him. It doesn't matter if you or he thinks he's right. You say as such but you only press it on me. You took his closing statement at face value. He closes the argument having accomplished and addressed nothing Like the rules don't apply to him. This conversation has continually heated me. You continue to call me a rulebreaker when it has been proven I didn't. You claimed I missed the point, when the question you refuse to answer was the exact spark of the conflict. This isn't about me. It was never about me. It was about defending IJBall instead of actually coming here in good faith to make your argument. An argument started at least an hour after my last edit to the page. Therefore I was not edit warring. I'm not here for namecalling and false accusations and yet that's exactly what has been levied against me. This is over.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 is only lasting 3 episodes because of Disney being homophobic. It will make the entire season rushed. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Not to mention that since the season is only three specials, you can't call it a "season". Saying that it is "ending" is personal to you. Sorry but I think your the disruptive one right now. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except we can and already are. Doesn’t matter how short the season is--CreecregofLife (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up! I will report you if you keep reverting my edits. You seem to revert my edits with no indication of me violating the rules. You just revert edits for attention. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t have to be a rules violation for your edit to be reverted. Why do you want to report me if I haven’t violated any rules? CreecregofLife (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Your not a target, your making edit wars. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this?

Shut up! I will report you if you keep reverting my edits. You seem to revert my edits with no indication of me violating the rules

You have made it clear that this isn't about me being disruptive, it's you throwing a tantrum that your edits were rejected. Heck, the reason this warning is here is because you're upset that I removed your bad faith warning, which, as it is my talkpage, I am completely within my right to do. It was the only edit I made between your two warnings. You have no case.--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You look like your in a bad mood too, thinking that my edits are bad without any explanation. Seriously, speak in the talk pages of the articles if you think my edits are bothering you. You know, that edit wars can cause consequences. Let me be calm as well because you seem to hate me raging. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to go to the talkpage to justify reverting your misinformation. Of course I'm in a bad mood, you are harassing me. You are threatening me because you think you're immune from having your edits reverted and also immune from perpetrating an edit war. If you wanted a discussion on the talkpage so bad, why didn't you start it?--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I harassing you of such edits? I might've taken myself too far by using "shut up" on you, but what is the excuse? I was warned by an admin anyway, plus you think my edits are bad with no proof provided, which is an act of WP:EW. I'm sorry if I had trouble focusing on talk pages, but I so angry with your edits, plus your not even using talk pages either, show some signs of hypocrisy. Have any questions, go ahead. Ask me some. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was not an act of edit warring. You were clearly acting on emotion, as I have demonstrated. Just because you took the edits personally does not mean that I violated anything. It was not my burden to go to the talk page, and frankly, I have kindled too many conversations for there not to be anyone to pick up the slack. It is not 100% my responsibility to start talk page conversations. To insist it is is a sign that everyone is choosing me as the perpetrator even when I’m not, and are forcing me to strictly follow rules they won’t CreecregofLife (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that the two of you are involved in a simple content dispute at 2022 in animation as opposed to anything deeper. To that end, here is my advice to both of you. Take some time and get yourselves calmed down and composed. Then put together a message at the talk page on the merits of your source at your position. When the other one posts theirs, take the time to read it. Engage in constructive conversation. If you can't make progress, reach out for a third opinion. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we have to work together to make it work. Cheers and happy editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I’m sorry, but I don’t think I t’s not just a content dispute anymore. The way BaldiBasicsFan has treated me is frankly unacceptable, and it is unfair to claim I have been at his emotional level. It’s more than incivility from them, it’s petty anger and a vengeance streak. I feel like I’m fighting an uphill battle and no one’s willing to help--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I will say is that if you can find a reliable source other than that tweet, which is only announcing the return of Amphibia and The Owl House, NOT that either show is ending, then its perfectly fine to say that it is ending on the 2022 in animation page. To my knowledge, it hasn't been officially confirmed that this is the final season of Amphibia. It may very well be, and you could even say that Matt Braly, who created Amphibia, implied it, but I haven't found anything as of yet which officially confirms it is the final season, not even from Braly, who has remained mum on the subject, unlike Terrace of The Owl House, who has openly said that the show is coming to an end (with the final episodes either airing this year or even next year) on multiple occasions. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that it is a simple content dispute too. Historyday01 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Look at this site:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3513500/
It said that Eric is voicing Monterey Jack in the upcoming film. That's pretty much prove enough to me. Kevbo128 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source CreecregofLife (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Eric voices Monterey Jack in the film, why can't we put that in there? Kevbo128 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have a reliable source. IMDb can be edited by anyone. Your insistence doesn’t make the information true CreecregofLife (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please just walk away from the thread at User talk:71.190.233.44 and, frankly, from interaction with them in general (unless it's discussion at an article talk page about content with nothing mentioned about the other editor). The IP is on final warning for their actions, and administrators will handle it from here. Don't make our task tougher by having to decide if you baited them into their next comment. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I wasn’t planning on going back--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit matter of factly states something as true about me and is a personal attack (I was not trying to "grasp control", but rather end a thread that was not productive by a new editor who was unwilling to read our policies and guidelines). I mistakenly assumed this edit was an honest accident, which is why I restored the closure. Do read up on casting aspersions about other editors before you do something like that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you threaten me when your comment justifying the collapsing of that branch could be construed as a personal attack?--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All it said was "this subthread is going nowhere". Walk me through your idea that that's a personal attack in any way? Also, nobody has threatened you. Calm down. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:ANI#CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring. And FYI, I really think you should take a break/chill out with all the disputes. Continuing this behavior will likely result in actions you won't want to be taken. Magitroopa (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is beating a man while he’s already down. Why can’t you just leave me alone? Why, in trying to tell me to chill out, would you put another target on my back?--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Indian topics, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please include an edit summary when you revert non-vandalism edits, such as here. For example, with that revert, you could have said "already documented in article" or something similar to explain why you removed that content. It helps the editor who was reverted and other editors watching that article to understand the reason the edit was undone. Without an edit summary, your revert could be viewed as blanking sourced content. A clear explanation in an edit summary contributes to collegial editing. Schazjmd (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, but in context, it happened in the midst of a talk page discussion about a previous attempt CreecregofLife (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it isn't just about you and the editor you're discussing with. It's for every editor watching the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I’m sorry, I should have. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment at User talk:BaldiBasicsFan was unnecessary. Up until that point, the situation was focused on the templates that were being left and not the user themselves. That comment changed the focus to the user.

WP:No personal attacks is very clear on this matter: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize, but I also disagree. The conversation was also about the improper invocation of policy to justify edits, and WP:NOTHERE was used twice by Baldi to justify their reversions, which to me seems like they’re trying to undercut the validity of my reversions by invoking irrelevant edit history, which is not the content at hand CreecregofLife (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And my follow-on after they replied was going to mention that I think that both editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia, so NOTHERE doesn't apply. You are correct that NOTHERE is aimed at the editor; however, calling them overdramatic is ratcheting things up another level or two on the aimed-at-editor scale. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the job is 'United States Marine' - so one would say 'X is an American retired soldier who served as a Marine' or similar. GiantSnowman 17:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you bother reverting the Warner Bros Discovery article while not doing the same for Discovery or WarnerMedia? You have not said you looked at my source, why are you not looking at my source. Is this all cause you hate the WarnerMedia-Discovery merger? Granthew (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, look at you jumping to random conclusions. Please retract your source CreecregofLife (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m asking a question. Granthew (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bad-faith question at that. I'm not going to dignify it. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made new edits to the Discovery and WarnerMedia articles that reflect a neutral point of view, it keeps what you have word for word. Granthew (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping what you have word for word. Granthew (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Volten001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Liz Sheridan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The content is well referenced and relevant. You should not remove it Volten001 ^☎ 22:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-referenced does not make it relevant. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with you on that but the content was relevant in this case. You have left only one sentence in that section which is just bare now. I also noticed you have already reverted my revision and I'm not about to engage in an edit-warring with you. Volten001 ^☎ 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bare section is not an excuse to fluff it up with trivia. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay maybe I'm not good with debating. But I believe it was not right to remove it. But I also respect your opinion so let's leave it at that. Happy editing Volten001 ^☎ 22:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith and remove your message at Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series). Debresser (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can assume good faith and be proven wrong by subsequent comments in the discussion. I have not broken protocol CreecregofLife (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistake, and I am now officially offended by you. Do with that whatever you want. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't actually want to take this to ANI, but don't you think removing good sources for their being too many of them is a bit odd? BD2412 T 01:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven’t made the case that it’s important enough to be there at all. You also still do not have consensus and jumped the gun. Invoking the possibility of an ANI report to get your way is dirty and underhanded. CreecregofLife (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking about your reversions of the addition of sources at Liz Sheridan, not Estelle Harris. I'm invoking the possibility because your behavior is rash. If you think the number of sources is excessive, why not remove a few, rather than all of them? BD2412 T 02:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re calling me rash but yet you made multiple edits you didn’t have consensus to make? CreecregofLife (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is consensus required to add sources? BD2412 T 02:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these disingenuous questions CreecregofLife (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to help you out, here. I have no grudge against you as an editor, I just don't want you going down a hole to the point that you can't see out. I'm leaving this discussion behind now. BD2412 T 03:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just some words of advice, but I would suggest never getting yourself involved in a dispute like this ever again. You were very close to an indefinite block, and pressing issues like this may push you over the edge. Based my 3 months of marginal experience, I would try avoiding this drama as much as you can. Building trust takes time, so I would try to just accept issues like this and move on. Instead of placing 9000 words of text on talk pages, this could be better spend making more edits. This is just my advice, but perhaps I am too naive. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. But I still maintain that I did nothing block-worthy on either the spoiler inclusion discussion or the ensuing ANI. And I think multiple people saw what happened for what it was, and that it wasn’t my fault. The outburst was a bit much, I get it, but it wouldn’t have been block worthy. It was just the one comment after all. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, apparently mobile Wikipedia does not like transferring my login from this app to the web version of the Doctor Strange 2 page. I was asking for the edit due to a slight inconsistency between superhero movie articles, but due to your timely and brief explanation I've decided not to push through with the edit. Thanks for the understanding too! GreenGrenier (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listening, I was glad to help CreecregofLife (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: ). Thank you. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Knights (TV series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TipsyElephant (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! While I do have over 10,000 edits, I wasn’t sure whether it felt right to move it myself, so I let it go through the process (it was something I hadn’t done before either). I am working on a 2023 in American television page, but I don’t know how long to wait to move it CreecregofLife (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CreecregofLife. I declined this as a technical move for reasons given in the edit summary. If you are not convinced, let me know or open up a conventional move discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened. The rationale doesn't sit quite right CreecregofLife (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new Pokemon Ultimate Journeys episode came out in Japan today. Can you add the summary to it? 2601:98A:201:8C90:0:0:0:F98E (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen it CreecregofLife (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Creecreg. I'm here to remind you just to keep your cool and not bite when someone tries to bait you with unfounded accusations as S. Marshall did. Let it go, respond simply and calmly, and mainly let others defend you, as pretty much everyone in this instance has done. Otherwise, you'll keep getting tangled in these, and becoming louder will often times just make it look as if this was a problem both of you are responsible, and make others from the outside see you both as equally in the wrong, be it in their thoughts or in their ways, instead of a one-sided problem where only one is to blame. —El Millo (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the reminder, thank you. I was starting to get a little worried I was being turned against. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best if you not decline requests. Thanks for the good, you do, but. . . . 15:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs)

I apologize, it’s just I’ve seen that specific page be requested so often that I went into the archives to grab the reasoning--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling some of the early films. It's greatly appreciated having you adjust old URL stylings and switching from WebCitation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome! It’s really unfortunate that WebCitation is gone, personally I think it’s as big a loss as TVbytheNumbers/Zap2it for just how widespread the use was. I primarily choose the Wayback Machine/Web Archive to at least maintain the spirit of its presence, but Archive.today does come with the benefit of saving characters. And then there’s the fact that as you said so many URL stylings have changed. Even something as simple as Deadline previously not having number code suffixes for their URLs. Or TV Guide having .aspx suffixes. You never know when a style might lead you to a dead end, but the article actually still existing on the site. The Hollywood Reporter with “hr_display” or something within them has probably been one of my biggest mixed bags. Old Comic Book Resources URLs used to redirect swimmingly to the subdomainless modern CBR URLs until very recently. Newsarama and Total Film seemingly did not survive very well on GamesRadar. Always good to dig a little deeper CreecregofLife (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted a section on NickRewind that gave more detail than it had before without giving a reason why. Wikipedia sections should have more detail than just 1-2 sentences and I provided more info. Please explain why you reverted my edit on NickRewind before trying to revert it again.

Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it this time with an edit summary CreecregofLife (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns_about_edits_at_NickRewind. Thank you. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be worried that they did this? CreecregofLife (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm notifying you because at the top of WP:ANI it says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." and the person who started the thread didn't. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that part CreecregofLife (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No improvement since the previous decline.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Villains of Valley View and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Villains of Valley View, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this explanation sufficient, as the previous decline reasoning is incompatible with the content of the article CreecregofLife (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why was that revertedMuur (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreecregofLife. You've changed refnames across quite a few articles, for instance this edit. The problem is that unlike that edit at times you're causing errors, it's taken 20 twenty minutes to fix the problems caused by this edit. I'm future unless you actually need to change the refname it's best not to, they can have ".com" in or be anything at all, they don't need correcting. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind, thank you. I swear, I’m usually more thorough and don’t leave any damage CreecregofLife (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that statement wasn't quite what I had in mind, but I wanted to get it straight to the guy whose edit I reverted. (i.e. Disney does not own WBD) Maxbmogs (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently added some content on the Lightyear (film) article, which was reverted by you, citing a potential word limit on edits or articles on Wikipedia. I was previously unaware of such a policy and would like to ask you for more information about it, as I think it would certainly be helpful for me to learn more about such important editing policies on Wikipedia. Thanks. Tamptonato (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamptonato: see MOS:PLOTBLOAT for the 700-word limit in plot summaries for films. —El Millo (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will review my edits in order to cut down on the word count as per this policy. Tamptonato (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: Why did you revert on the The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder article? I would like to know. scope_creep^Talk 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) @CreecregofLife: Fair enough, your not answer, so it edit warring noticeboard. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What purpose does it serve to be so petty and impatient? CreecregofLife (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be because I'm tired after reviewing about 130 articles and i'd like to know why you think a dodgy reference is a good thing. So far i've not had any kind of explanation from you or BrickMaster02 why its a good thing or why you decided to become involved. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Dodgy reference” you can’t just call any reference you dislike “dodgy”. You were threatening to subject me to discipline because I didn’t answer you fast enough. How in the world is that fair? CreecregofLife (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because I remove 100's of unreliable refs, in the course of reviewing and I know the sysyem of notability and policies really well as part of page review. It is page review, WP:NPP. I've been doing it for years. There is rough consensus around using social media links, but you only get 1 on the article, and using an SPS source from instagram on a BLP is not cool, to verify core fact. It is deeply uncool. So far you haven't explained why you decided to revert . Are you trying to stop the review process? scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn’t a BLP, that was a show page. I don’t think you’re acting in good faith CreecregofLife (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Instead of just reverting my edits (e.g. [8]), please can you explain why you are reverting them? Per WP:REVEXP, it is best to do so in the edit summary ... but since you haven't done that, please can you explain here BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn’t give an explanation as to why you’re replacing the short URL with its longer form and unnecessarily adding back thousands of characters. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true! I did give an explanation, in every edit summary: because the longer URL is more transparent, i.e. it allows easy verification that the archive-url points to the same URL as the unarchived URL.

InternetArchiveBot does the same thing with archive today URLs.

I see that you have now done 8 such reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/CreecregofLife&dir=prev&offset=20220618065724&target=CreecregofLife

Please stop. I am only doing the same task that a bot done when it edits a page with such edits. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never seen the bot do what you claim. Why do we need all the cruft shown? Why do we need thousands of extra bytes added when there are simpler solutions? What the heck is “link rel” supposed to be? You are violating WP:CITEVAR.CreecregofLife (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of IABot doing it: [9].

In most cases, there are a few dozens of extra bytes. Thousnads is just provocative hyperbole.

AS I explained above, the benefit of displaying the full URL is that it allows easy verification that the archive-url points to the same URL as the unarchived URL.

I see no violation of CITEVAR. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS "link rel" refers to the metadata in the archive page from which I extract the bookmark URL. View the source of one of these archive pages, and you will find A line like this: <link rel="bookmark" href="http://archive.today/20220518155118/www.gouverneurmorrispapers.com/2019/10/gouverneur-morris-and-slavery-part-i.html"/> -- that's where I get the book mark URL from BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not provocative hyperbole. I’ve reverted examples where they’re 500-1300 being added back. The example you linked to was your doing. Using the long or short style of archive.today URL is a citation style you forcibly changed because of your preference. That’s how it’s a CITEVAR violation. Why is the archive URL being treated as an exception? CreecregofLife (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reviewed WP:CITEVAR, and I see nothing there which comes anywhere near deprecating what I and IAbot are doing. Please explain which parts of the text of CITEVAR deprecates expanding a URL, and why it is a problem for me to do it when IAbot does at scale.

500-1300 is the extreme and rare upper end; most are dozens, and some of those you hve reverted are dozens. And 500-1300 is not "thousands", which is why I ask you to drop theprovocative hyperbole. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS See WP:Citing_sources#Generally_considered_helpful, first bullet: improving existing citations by adding missing information. That is what I and IAbot are doing.

Please stop reverting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It accumulates. Therefore it is not hyperbole, and you are not adding missing information by writing out the archive-urls in full. The archive urls, which is what the parameter asks for, are already there. What you are doing is not helpful. And you still haven't proven IABot has ever done this. You only ever linked to yours CreecregofLife (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you persuade IAbot to stop expanding the URLs, I will stop too.

The missing information being added is the name of the webpage archived at the given URL. With the short URLs, that can be determined only by visiting the URL.

The extra bytes do not "accumulate", unless you are somehow concerned about server storage space, which we are instructed to ignore. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving the goalposts. The archive URLs were never missing. I described exactly what is asked of the archive url parameter. You claimed 500-1300 was rare when your contributions say otherwise. How am I supposed to persuade a bot when the person using a bot won’t even concede anything? CreecregofLife (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your demand that I ((concede)) most uncollegial. Please try to discuss our disagreement with civility.

I just reviewed my most recent 200 edits. On a quick count, I found that only 9 of the 200 exceed 500 bytes added, and only one exceeds 1000. That's rare.

You don't seem to have heard my explanation of te benefit of the longer URL. I have already repeated it once; please can you read it?

And no, you do not need to "persuade a bot". You persuade the bot owner. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousnads is just provocative hyperbole." was part of your second comment to me. You're telling me to be civil when the second thing you did was make an unprovoked accusation. You haven't been civil, you twist my words and reshape their context. The fact that you sampled 200 edits from an hour and a half when you've been doing this task for far longer shows your sample was selective, not representative. You have not provided a logically sufficient explanation and when you were told you were wrong you called me "uncivil". You have not made a good-faith conversation CreecregofLife (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS Your statement you still haven't proven IABot has ever done this. You only ever linked to yours simply shows that you don't understand how IAbot works. It makes edits on behalf of the user who requests it, so [10] was an edit by IAbot in my name. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you asked the bot to do it in your name, but when someone points out it's still your responsibility they "don't understand?" It's still your doing. "The bot does it, that makes it okay" doesn't hold water when it's still you working the bot CreecregofLife (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. When a user points IAbot at a page, they don't determine what the bot does to the page. It decides what changes to make, and expanding these URLs is one of its functions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, more condescension CreecregofLife (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, BHG is absolutely correct here, as she usually is, being one of the most experienced and productive editors on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 23:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She can't be nonetheless absolutely correct, that would be calling the condescension the right thing to do. She has been wrong at every step. CreecregofLife (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creec, I came here because you rudely reverted without explanation, contrary to WP:REVEXP. You the falsely claimed that I had not explained my edits.

I have tried to discuss with you, but I have now had enough of your combative aggression, your repeated hyperbole, and persistent refusal to engage with the points I make. The final straw is that when I ask you to engage with the points I make, you dismiss that as condescension.

So I am withdrawing from this discussion. Please find someone else with whom to pick the fight you clearly want, and stop reverting my edits. You already have a third opinion supporting my view. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is all projection. I wasn't rude by reverting you. I didn't falsely claim you hadn't explained your edits. I said you hadn't explained why you were doing this. You explained what you were doing. I was never hyperbolic, because as you said yourself, you brought up 200 edits for your project, and 9 in that sample removed between 500 and 1300 bytes. That is thousands of bytes you're removing. If my calling out your passive aggressive condescension is the final straw, that says a lot more about you than me. Your edits are still unjustified and not immune to reversion. Especially as you only take ownership when it's convenient to you. There is no third opinion. Experience and productivity doesn't make you right CreecregofLife (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing more transparent URLs is a self-explanatory benefit, like fixing typos or incorrect links. One need not explain why they are making clear improvements that would elsewhere be part of a bot task not even requiring human intervention. BD2412 T 00:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies CreecregofLife (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreecregofLife. I just wanted to draw your attention to Help:Citation Style 1#Language which states that the use of language codes is preferred, even for sources in English, as they assist with copying of citations across wikis. Would you be amenable to not removing them in the future please? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll keep it in mind--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Informal ban on Archive.today shortlinks, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Siragusa, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey – I wanted to pop in to do what I shoulda done, which is explain my edits properly. I replaced the line breaks with ((pb)) under MOS:ACCESS, where it states "Do not ☒ use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics".

I generally remove, and replace, line breaks within Wikipedia whenever I see them for these reasons of accessibility, as ((pb)) will simulate a visual paragraph break without messing with how content will be read out by a screenreader.

I know that line breaks are very commonly used throughout Wikipedia, but for accessibility, there are generally better options. I hope this makes sense!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Thanks for coming in. You can put them back, we'll see how others react CreecregofLife (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Burkina Faso adjective?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new here, but I saw your finale on Duncanville, and put final episode air date so you don't have to. I was just wondering if I could help you with other show on here, like episodes, air date, etc. F8nuk1jo0mp (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn’t really help at all CreecregofLife (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I removed the spoilers in the voice cast description not because spoilers aren't allowed, but because the Plot section already goes through the entire plot of the movie, so rehashing the same plot points in Voice Cast is cluttering and unnecessary (and the Encanto Voice Cast section is hard enough to read as it is). The Cast section is usually just the character name and base description in WP film articles. Please consider re-adding the changes or otherwise cleaning up that section. Mongoose22 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a fair point CreecregofLife (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I haven't been involved in today's edits at the article above, but I'm just here to point out that there are only a few policies that provide an exemption from WP:3RR. Those exemptions are listed at WP:3RRNO. They are referring to situations like obvious vandalism and serious policy breaches - like BLP problems or the inclusion of child pornography. WP:CS is actually a guideline, not a policy, and talk page discussion would be the way to get to the bottom of problems like the one you are seeing.

I hope you'll take this message as it was intended - as a friendly attempt to correct a misunderstanding before it gets out of hand, not as an effort to embarrass anyone or to come off as condescending. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Hockett: Well I was just reported to ANI over it, and I don’t think my account should be in danger over iy CreecregofLife (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. Looks like this went to ANI while I was typing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article) and Talk) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted in the block summary, this is intended as a block from all pages except this one and AN/I. As there is no way to technically enforce an "inverse pblock", I have left it at a pblock from mainspace and talkspace, and am trusting you to comply with what's intended. This is done as a courtesy because I don't like the idea of blocking someone from an AN/I thread that's just been started about them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in your block log: CreecregofLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit warring: 4th revert at Washington Commanders immediately after warning. Would be a siteblock, but in light of ongoing AN/I thread, please consider this a block from all pages *except* AN/I and your talk. Please consider that you may be wrong about what you did, and commit to using the talk page in the future instead of reverting (and I say this as someone who has a history of edit warring, it doesn't go well usually). I'm not sure why you were revert warring over ((cite web)), but the |website= parameter is usually used to denote the publisher, so the initial changes were correct. If there's something else that is worth discussing that the rest of us missed, bring it up on the article talk page once your block is over. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pretty hard to see the block log when you only see that you got a new talk page message, just saying. Being brought to ANI over this is way out of line CreecregofLife (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been WP:PBLOCKed before, so not sure if it does anything to let you know. I know with a full block the moment you try to edit a page (other than your talk page, unless that's been revoked too) you get hit with a message with the block log entry listed. The situation at Washington Commanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should have gone through WP:AN/EW IMO. I would carefully consider what Larry said above, and you may wish to remove your unblock request until you've had time to consider what's been said on here and at AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve had time. I’ve seen how I’ve been treated. At this point it’s a dogpile and I’m sick to my stomach with the thought that I could be handed the harshest punishment on a first block because the people with the most hatred for me here get to violate NPA to put me aeay CreecregofLife (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were given one of the shortest blocks possible for one of the most basic violations of edit warring. No need to make such a big heal out of things, just start following WP:BRD after your block expires. You just need to start doing more talk page discussions instead of these repeated reverts. Easy fix. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They’re already proposing an indef+SO. I don’t want to wait months to edit again just because of grudges CreecregofLife (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to convince them that these sorts of issues won't happen again. Making these dramatic comments about being treated unfairly or not understanding how edit warring works is not helping your case at all. Assurances of changes, not complaining, will dig you out if this hole. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure that I’ll change all I want, I can behave as best I can, but if they’re going to keep holding that I’ve been brought in against me, how am I supposed to handle that? Why are these claims against my character not being looked into? They bring up vague things from before and nobody bothers to ask what actually happened. What I observe about them is alleged, but what they claim about me is considered concrete fact. I’ve shown I’ve changed, most users have seen that, but I can’t convince those that have already written me off CreecregofLife (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show you've changed rather than just claim you have. It was only about 16 days ago that you accused an editor of responding with DARVO. This isn't an "alleged", this is something you actually did, a "concrete fact" if you will. You need to convince people at ANI either that you've drastically changed in those 16 days, or that somehow your accusation wasn't as seriously wrong as it seems. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue those are two isolated and unrelated incidents that don’t contribute to persistent disruption CreecregofLife (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made one of the most serious personal attacks I've seen on Wikipedia at least one done seriously. (I've seen trolls accuse others of being paedophiles and stuff.) The fact that you're still downplaying the seriousness of your personal attack suggests you're not the sort of editor we should ever allow to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused her of being a sexual offender. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading my message I apologise if it wasn't as clear as intended. I wasn't saying you'd accused her of being a paedophile. I was trying to say you've made one of the most serious personal attacks I've seen on Wikipedia, at least a personal attack made seriously. The paedophile example was because it was the only actual example I could recall of a more serious personal attack but the only ones I recall weren't serious but done by trolls. (So really it's the most serious personal attack I can recall. I mean I'm sure there have been more serious ones, just not that I either saw or can recall.) As I said as ANI, while BHG have been the one who brought it up, the sexual offender bit is IMO unnecessary. Accusing an editor of DARVO tactics is an extremely serious personal attack unless you have the evidence for it. It doesn't matter that it's not intended as a comparison to a sexual offender. You're accusing an editor of an extremely nasty form of psychological manipulation. To be clear, an editor actually guilty of DARVO is the sort of editor who IMO should be community banned, probably for ever. And I'm an editor who generally thinks no block or ban is really forever since for even some of our most serious trolls, maybe in 20 years time things will be different. So of course, accusing an editor of doing so is an extremely serious accusation and if you lack the evidence, it becomes an extremely serious personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ll just have to wait out the remainder of this. The ANI thread is especially angering and I’m not liking how so many are treating me CreecregofLife (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: There are people here who are trying to help you. Listen to them rather than doing stuff like this. I know that things were not the best when I interacted with you at Talk:Betty White and Talk:Bob Saget, but you do make improvements to the wiki. I think you need to take a step back, think about what has happened, and go from there. Regardless of the outcome of the case, I feel that you should take a break from Wiki and try to focus on other things. And if you don't agree with that, then I can understand. But I do think you should listen to the others. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if one does get blocked, you can always see your block log by clicking on your user contributions, then the link for block log. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have converted this to a siteblock (with same expiry as the previous) since you edited pages other than your usertalk and AN/I, despite instructions above, in the block summary, and at AN/I to not do so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: please restore previous block settings, I swear it was an accident (it was one page, not multiple as claimed by your comment and the summary) and I need to defend myself on the ANI. I’m sorry.CreecregofLife (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You edited not just RFPP but User talk:BilCat, with an explicit (and dare I say inappropriate) request for help at AN/I. How was that an accident? I think I was kind to not extend the block in the course of broadening it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When you need help, you ask for help, and Polyamorph’s request, as the initial reporter at ANI, did not assume good faith when making his request and did so out of their own interests. I have every right to comment on my ANI report CreecregofLife (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I always AGF but unfortunately you were edit warring across multiple articles. Polyamorph (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was one article. Do not play these games CreecregofLife (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose this is an acknowledgement of sorts. When you are unblocked you could acknowledge your edit warring and apologise, apologise properly and unreservedly to BHG, and promise to listen to your fellow wikipedian's (especially when they patiently try to explain policy to you) and follow consensus in the future. Then you may have a chance of participating constructively and collaboratively in this community. Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have every right to comment on my ANI report Not really, technically now that you're site blocked, you can request someone copy your reply from here to the AN/I discussion. Tamzin was doing you a favor by trying to keep you able to do your own replies, but you literally need to slow down, not respond the way you have, and not help blow this up larger than the 3RR discussion by fueling the fire. Think carefully on how you respond from here on out. With that all being said, Facu-el Millo has given you good advice below, and I'll add to that: As regards this 3RR block, you must understand and acknowledge what you did was wrong and ideally apologize for it. No excuses. No finger pointing, own your actions. A commitment to not do it again (or commit to WP:1RR as El Millo said below) would hopefully address some of the concerns at AN/I.

  @Tamzin: As regards WP:CANVASS, the pings at the top of that AN/I discussion kind of tossed that notion out the window, wouldn't you say? It appears that Polyamorph ping'd people they knew would have an unfavorable opinion on CreecregofLife (and the trajectory of that conversation is going about as well as you'd expect). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that there's a difference between pinging someone to AN/I and contacting them on their talkpage (unless one then says at AN/I "I contacted this person on their talkpage"). It's the transparency spectrum at WP:INAPPNOTE; the message spectrum arguably comes into play as well. Regardless, my main concern here was going against the restriction I had left in place in lieu of siteblock.

  CL, I do hope you'll take LC's advice. Locke has—I hope he won't take offense to me pointing out—been blocked a few times. I have also been blocked. I'm one of a pretty small number of admins to have ever been indefinitely blocked (excluding misclicks and such). The best thing I ever did for myself on Wikipedia was really thinking through my response to that block; things would have gone very differently if I'd responded impulsively. I had a more recent reminder too, that it's good to step away, and that stepping away too late is still better than not stepping away at all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was just about 3RR, then Polyamorph wouldn’t have thrown everything else they didn’t like on top of it. The thing about “No excuses, no finger pointing, own your actions.” is it means everyone can comment on my behavior and point fingers every which way about my behavior, but I can’t comment on theirs, which provides entire context for my actions as reactions to theirs. I can take responsibility for my actions, and I do, I’m sorry for edit warring, but they do not exist in a vacuum solely of my own doing. How can I be the only one expected to own my actions while everyone points the finger at me. I take full responsibility for the revert too far, and possibly misusing the term DARVO (there are issues to how it was handled in the conversation; immediately dismissed and taken as equivalent to slurs when it looks to me like the conversation wasn’t even read to see whether it was a plausible conclusion). The way the ANI conversation went, I had to do what I did

  If you’ll notice, in some of the days before yesterday, I had been editing less. I tried staying away. The Lightyear discussion was getting something really bad. The difference between sources and reliable sources was just not getting through, and they were not listening, repeatedly claiming there was consensus in the middle of a detailed objection that goes into why what they were doing doesn’t work. But they kept insisting it did, with no new information. So I was around when the Commanders edit happened, and it was bizarre to me, it looked unconstructive, so I reverted it. The edit summary they gave explained what they were doing, but not why. It reminded me of the bot that was/is turning web citations to that of the source’s print counterpart. That’s why the second revert. I reverted again because I had the guideline to support me. I thought that was the end of it. But then Polyamorph found it, called it edit warring and awarded “proper version” to the other guy. Notice I never blamed them for my edit warring, I only sought acknowledgement that they were edit warring too, and that policy was being unequally enforced. Even on the ANI, my reasoning was never addressed once I gave it as requested. He then went to incident because he was holding onto his displeasure about a discussion I had left alone days prior, or at least long enough that it shouldn’t have been a factor in the report. If it’s so good to step away, why does avoiding the people and conversations unfavorable come back anyway as something to hold against the person who walks away? CreecregofLife (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, let's review the Commanders situation. Bold edit with edit summary by Charlesaaronthompson. You reverted (#1). He reverted (#1), noting you gave no explanation. You reverted (#2), stating he gave no reason. He reverted (#2), restating the reason for the edit. You reverted again (#3). Polyamorph reverted you (#1), raising an objection to the name of the website that you reverted to. You reverted a fourth time. Polyamorph raised the ANI report.

  First, you clearly broke the 3RR brightline rule, and there is no exception that applies; you should not be surprised you got blocked. Second, Charlesaaronthompson walked away from the situation after the second revert. He offered an explanation, which you had asked for; it's hard to say what he would have done next, but it's reasonable to assume he would have taken it to the talk page or otherwise de-escalated. Polyamorph raised a valid content-related reason when they reverted your edit.

  At the end of the day, in this situation, your reasoning doesn't matter, because you broke 3RR. There is nothing in the other editors' conduct to mitigate that fact. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You don’t need 3 reverts to be edit warring, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. “Reasonable to assume” does not mean he did not already commit edit warring violations CreecregofLife (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me be direct, then. He did nothing that justified any sanctions. You did. That's why you are blocked and why a 1RR restriction is under consideration to be placed on your account. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He edit warred. He did the exact same things I did. You can’t tell me he “walked away” and I didn’t when there were 7 hours between the edit war and Polyamorph’s reversion. CreecregofLife (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He did not do the exact same things you did. There were seven hours before Polyamorph's reversion—seven hours in which he didn't revert. Yet you jumped in and reverted five minutes after Polyamorph did. That is obvious evidence that you were continuing the edit war. And this edit summary shows an absolute lack of understanding by you of what edit warring is. I humbly suggest that you use the next message you place on your talk page to do a better job of convincing us both that you understand what edit warring is and that you will not engage in it in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know what edit warring is, I’m sorry I did it, and I will not engage in such a manner in the future. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I didn't go to ANI, and instead gave them some advice on my talk page. They have apparently ignored it and similar advice posted here by others. This isn't a good sign. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I followed your advice exactly. I apologized wholeheartedly for the 3RR. C I only brought up others’ behavior for context CreecregofLife (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just left a message at ANI suggesting that no action be taken until after your block expires. As I said there, I hope this is a wake-up call and your edits after the block expires are better. It's your actions that will determine your fate. Super Goku may have a point: it may not be a bad idea to step away for a bit and refocus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At the very least, Creecreg, you should simply stop reverting, let alone doing it more than once. Conduct yourself per WP:1RR instead of 3RR. Plus, don't ever publish a reversion without an explanatory edit summary. —El Millo (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  May I chime in, since my username was mentioned, and I'd like the opportunity to defend myself? Regarding the Washington Commanders article: yes, I did commit to two successive reverts, but then I realized that I was getting extremely close to violating the three-revert rule, so I walked away from the article and moved on to other articles. In hindsight, the next step I should have and most likely would have taken after my edits were reverted was move the discussion to the talk page for the Washington Commanders article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "The tables are spaced this way for ease of reading." My edit does not impact the presentation of the information on the article, rather reduces the article size, which makes it easier to load on mobile devices. I also removed two non-notable wrestling names from the deaths table. The two are niche referees of a psuedo-sport. I don't think that warrants a listing on a television article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Niche references”? They’re people, still a part of a television program regardless of the legitimacy of the sport CreecregofLife (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but are we listing NBA, NHL referees etc. Unless they were a huge part of a tv program, I don't see why they should included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You call it a pseudo sport but it’s not staged enough to be a TV program? Make up your mind CreecregofLife (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have determined that there is consensus at the ANI complaint featuring yourself (permalink) to impose a WP:SITEBAN by the community. Consequently, I have blocked you indefinitely. Please see WP:UNBAN for your appeal options. Thank you. El_C 07:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which one actually does apply to me though? I’m reading through and I’m not sure which CreecregofLife (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Site Ban, as it says at WP:SITEBAN, which links to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Site ban: "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CreecregofLife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My editing had already improved in the two days that I could. I was using edit summaries way more and using the talk pages, helping other users out of their confusion. I have already apologized profusely for the mistakes I made. I am not persistently disruptive. I understand that I should get something for what I did, but considering the context and intended trajectory as placed by the complaint cited, going for such a harsh punishment is cruel and excessive, and should at the very least be drastically reduced

Decline reason:

You were site banned literally hours ago, by community consensus. It is much, much, much WP:TOOSOON to unban you. Nor does this come remotely close to what might lead to an unban. Try again no sooner than six months from today. Yamla (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Earlier today you violated 3RR, with a first revert that was without an edit summary, as pointed out by Magitroopa here. So no, your editing didn't improve, and it seems clear that your block prevents further disruption from you. —El Millo (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Seems clear” because a user nitpicking every little move I make, choosing to focus on an anomaly means my behavior hasn’t improved at all? That’s ludicrous! Yes, the removals were arbitrary. If they were non-notable they wouldn’t have articles at the current time. Why is it that their framing of the events are so unquestioned, but I pour my heart out, and yet I’m still called disruptive? CreecregofLife (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, I doubt a majority of the people who voiced concerns in the ANI will believe an unblock would be acceptable here with you already posting an unblock request less than 24 hours after first receiving the block- that in itself, I believe shows how much you really don't understand why you've been blocked. I would honestly recommend taking a break from Wikipedia- month(s) rather than day(s) or week(s)- and take the time to reflect and your behavior. This isn't anyone's doing but your own.

Listen- no one likes/wants to be blocked. And clearly I can't speak from the perspective, but I'm sure most/all admins don't like/want to block users. However, they are circumstances in which the block is needed.

I don't know what's going through your mind at all, but these ANI discussions & blocks are not to say, "We hate you, go away, goodbye"- one of the positive things coming from the discussion is what I believe IJBall said regarding WP:NOTHERE: You're quite clearly here to be constructive, but what's not very clearly is you being collaborative with others here.

I think I said it (or something similar) in one of the previous ANIs and I'll say it again: we want you here, this isn't just some way to get you to leave and never come back. You've done many helpful/constructive things here, but it's much harder for us to want you to stay when most of your time here is spent getting involved in edit wars, arguments with other users, and all the other issues that has been discussed.

I'm (and I'm sure everyone else) is hopeful for you to come back to editing and being collaborative with others, but I don't think getting an unblock less than 24 hours after first receiving it will lead many people to believe the same behavior has actually ended for real. I highly urge you to step back, take some time to reflect/see what you've done wrong, and actually devote yourself to making these changes happen. It's quite difficult to work with you when any issues brought up regarding your behavior is met with you going straight into defense mode- own up to your mistakes, apologize, but make sure those same mistakes won't happen again as opposed to what's been going on the past several months.

I truly hope you can come back with your constructive/helpful edits, but until you're able to also work collaboratively with others, I don't believe right now is the time for that. I hope you understand. Magitroopa (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t asking for a full unblock. I know it’s the template I used, but I was more just asking for a reduction. I know how ludicrous it’ll (mostly) look to unblock so soon after administering the block, but appeals are also used to reduce sentences, aren’t they? I think indefinite is too excessive. To say most of my time is spent edit warring is too inaccurate a generalization. Picking one situation that didn’t go as you hoped out of three or four collaborative situations does not mean I’m not collaborative with others. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You broke WP:3RR only days after getting blocked for the very same thing. That is not an anomaly - that is systemic. Polyamorph (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t break 3RR. There were only three edits by me surrounding the content. Not a fourth. Just because you call my edits bad doesn’t make them actually bad. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. You made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. You were edit warring with Sportsfan 1234. Polyamorph (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• An indefinite ban is not necessarily forever, and I've seen some that have turned out quite short. An indefinite sanction is generally applied when the community sees a problem that they do not think will be solved by the mere passage of time. That is the case here, and what the community would need to see is that you fully understand the problems (particularly with your style of interaction with others), plus a convincing explanation of what you would do differently if the ban is lifted. I suggest you spend a little time away from Wikipedia - I often find that if I spend some time away from something I've been very close to, I can come back and see it more clearly. You need to seriously think about the way you have been interacting with other editors. There are other issues, like edit warring, but that is the core of it. And then come back and make a new appeal when you feel you can properly address this and can explain clearly how you will change your approach in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The people involved in the ANI do not represent the community at large. I have been interacting with editors just fine. I have seen things very clearly. I should not have to wait six months to appeal a ban that should have had an expiry point in the first place. Whether the ban should be lifted shouldn’t be an if. It should be a when. I have continually been treated with hostility from the first month I got here, and I don’t think that’s been addressed well enough. I deserve a fair shot to defend and prove myself without it being colored by those same hostile users. Instead of shaming me for being defensive, it should be explored why I became defensive because of those users. The users themselves were never questioned, and in turn landed me with no way to appeal an indefinite first block. I did exactly what I was told to do in the unban guidelines, and instead of listening, was told not only is it too soon, but I have to wait six months? What is the point of an unban process if you’re not even given the chance of being worked with? You tell me to be more collaborative, but collaboration is a two way street. Why can’t someone work with me to pare down a block? This isn’t fair. Why am I the only one who needs to change my approach because of a handful of users who never gave me a fair shot when I work collaboratively with dozens to hundreds of others? Why would the answer to seeing whether someone can work collaboratively be to stop them from doing so? Isn’t that counterintuitive? CreecregofLife (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above response shows exactly why you were blocked in the first place and why Yamla declined your unblock request- still not taking responsibility for your actions/behavior, saying other users are the problem (calling us all 'hostile'? Seriously?) and making believe you did nothing wrong ("I have been interacting with editors just fine."), despite the exact opposite being discussed. The fact that you seem to have ignored my suggestions in my above comment worries me that even six months won't be enough. Magitroopa (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional things: 1) Among those in the ANI discussion who supported an indefinite block is C.Fred, an administrator who has tried to help/give you advice before (as evidenced at User talk:CreecregofLife#Please consider this friendly advice). 2) "The people involved in the ANI do not represent the community at large."- I highly doubt many other people in the community would support your behavior/actions, so I really don't think you'd want to open this up even further. Magitroopa (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creec, please read WP:NOTTHEM. While the actions of others can be frustrating, ultimately the only person responsible for the actions you have taken is yourself. Please, please use this time to reflect upon those choices. While you may not like the feedback many have given because it casts your editing in a certain light, it is still feedback that you should ultimately try to take onboard because that is how others are perceiving you. While your intentions may have been different, my read on the ANI thread is that many well regarded editors have found you to be intransigent.

My advice, take some time away. Take a week or a month, go do something else. Then come back with a clearer head and re-read what has been said. Try to put aside the defensive emotional reflex and focus on the behaviours others that others have remarked on that make it impossible to edit collegiately with you. Use that to figure out what behaviours of yours are causing this problem that many unrelated editors have remarked upon, to effect change in the only person in life whom you can control; yourself. When you can do that, you'll be able to demonstrate the meaning behind NOTTHEM, and I believe mount a successful appeal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife, I'm going to try to keep this short. I've examined a lot of your interactions with others, and I have seen *you* reacting with hostility to perfectly reasonable and civil approaches multiple times, from multiple people, since you've been here. One of the repeated themes at that ANI was that you keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. And I'm sorry to say, this is more of the same. Unless and until you can see what everyone else can see, I think your chances of unblock are slim. Sorry, but that's my honest take. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You were sitebanned by the Community here.
• Your editing of your talk page yesterday violated your siteban
• If you think I'm going to reverse/WHEELWAR with Bbb23 over a clearly justifiable removal of your talk page access, you are not thinking clearly. It was an admin action in support of your siteban. Admins get to remove TPA for disruption and/or violation of a siteban.
• If anyone told you to appeal in one month, I don't see it here. They said reread all of this in a month to understand what people are telling you. It's been month, and you have not changed.. You may appeal a siteban six months after it was applied. Each time you edit in defiance of the ban, you reset the timer.
• In the UTRS ticket, you clearly think it's other people. It is you.
• Many people have tried to help you, but you have not changed your attitude. Please do not request unblocking/unbanning until you see how wrong you have been, and can address the reasons for your block.
• While I appreciate your frustration, you clearly cannot comprehend that you have been in the wrong and are continuing to be in the wrong. Please do not email me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. Please see Yamla's decline above. Six months -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect A League of Their Own (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#A League of Their Own (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Valet (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#The Valet (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CreecregofLife, the timeline for a potential standard offer appeal is reset to 6 months from today.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect House Party (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § House Party (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is August 8, make sure you pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER by tomorrow and not create more sock accounts/IPs. More block evasion will reactivate the clock. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 6 month timeframe noted in WP:STANDARDOFFER is the minimum amount of time before a unblock request can be made. They don't have to pursue it by tomorrow; tomorrow is simply the first day they're eligible to make a standard offer unblock request. In fact, it's better if they take the time to make a thoughtful unblock request. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I do wonder if their behavior will improve. Will wait and see... BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the IP of your writing style continued as editing after a six month period per Special:Contributions/108.41.81.126, the clock for a potential WP:STANDARDOFFER was reactivated from six months from today. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]