Hello, Megerflit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing I should mention is that surprisingly few of us profit from being part of Wikipedia. For the overwhelming majority, myself included, it is a "labor of love" and we have only our own reputations and consciences to guide us, not renumeration. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick it's Bri again. I'm sad about the block. If you still want to be a volunteer editor here, you can. Maybe wait a bit before reapplying, and feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you want to talk. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please leave the maintenance templates in place. They're there to get other editors to review the situation and help improve the article. As I noted on the talk page, I think the text is an improvement; that's why I didn't just completely undo all of your edits.

That said, if you haven't reverted away the tags three times today, you're close. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule that says an editor can be blocked for reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours. I'd hate to see your account get blocked, but if you're persisting in removing the maintenance tags and refusing to engage in civil discussions with your fellow editors, then it may become necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Nick Bougas. Home Lander (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding remedies, please indicate how you would like things to proceed regarding the Nick Bougas article:

1. You restore the maintenance templates do nothing and allow discussion of the issues to take place on the talk page.
2. You conclude that the article was better before you started editing it, and we roll it back to how it looked before you started.
3. You remove the templates again and get reported to the noticeboard for edit warring for administrative action for your conduct—likely a temporary block on your account.
4. You make more personal attacks against editors and get reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents for your conduct, which could lead to a longer-term block.

Your previous actions on the article have reached the level where they are unacceptable. Your next actions will determine how they need to be addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[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:Megerflit reported by User:Home Lander (Result: ). Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Nick Bougas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I should be unblocked simply because the chief reasons you state for blocking me are absolutely untrue. First off, the bombastic lead sentence with all it's staggeringly dramatic caps and emphasis is a laughable falsehood that perfectly illustrates how recklessly over-emotional the staffers at your curious enterprise truly are. I never once made the statement showcased below in quotation marks:

"You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent refusal to accept that Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by an individual editor coming along and saying "STAND ASIDE FOR ME, BECAUSE MY PREFERRED VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE IS THE CORRECT ONE."

Is the quote supposed to instead represent a "perceived" position or attitude of mine? If so, you should have written "and, in effect, saying" ... you'd think that surgically precise sticklers of your ilk would know that. Gents, I can assured you that yours truly never attempted domination or control of the bio page since It was always crystal clear that such an aspiration was futile. I was never in a position to "control" anything. I was merely trying to save the most relevant facts and credits I had offered from the unwarranted, savage butchery of your editors, who began gleefully chopping away at my initial entry almost immediately. Then, when I tried to reintroduce some of my pertinent career credits to the well trimmed bio, it was immediately slashed again. My offering was then declared "pretentious" and "self promoting" by these oh-so-considerate and not-the-least-bit-snarky employees of your bizarre operation. The editors, who were by now taking sardonic glee in wrecking my page, then began referring to the final result (three stodgy, robotic sentences) as "my preferred version" which it never was for an instant. It was always their lame, uninformative product and nothing that any featured subject of a Wiki bio page would ever consider appropriate or fair. I have to chuckle, too, at all the corny gasping and pearl clutching you people do when you earn some of what you refer to as "uncivil" replies. It's fine for your employees to insult and harangue subjects of your articles and offer no consideration or help, but when someone rightfully calls you out on it, it's time to retreat to the trauma unit. You fevered folks really need to work on that.... seriously.

next segment of your reasons for blocking me:

"You were given a short block as a warning, but instead of taking the warning, you just came back with the same approach as before: edit-warring, personal attacks on other editors, treating an article as though you think you personally own it, aggressively insisting on your preferred version rather than politely and cooperatively discussing the issues with a view to trying to reach agreement, and so on."

UNTRUE. When I realized how astonishingly unhelpful and uncooperative your editors were committed to being, and how hostile and intolerant they were to the bio I offered, I took the original version of the page and began removing the incorrect elements that first inspired me to attempt to replace it with my own much more informed and detailed version. These latest edits of mine have obviously proven digestible even to the vultures who gleefully savaged my version as those corrections have been allowed to stand for hours now.

and finally :

"Very simply, that is not how Wikipedia works."

Sorry kiddies, but from the perspective of this very seasoned old soldier, any business who seeks to endlessly disrespect and harass an accomplished subject that they nominated to feature on their site (for profit, nonetheless) doesn't WORK at all ... it only schlubs about mindlessly and soullessly looking for a soft place to lay down and expire ... by the way, I know your senses will howl in protest at the suggestion that what you do is "for profit", but all the phony platitudes that you may offer in your company's defense are as transparent as an empty baggy.) Ironically, when I first became aware that I was being featured in a biography page on Wikipedia, I initially figured (before I knew better) that it was perhaps a bit of an honor. It didn't take long for me to realize how out of touch you people are with the core aspects of the very thing you do for a living. Has it occurred to you folks, for even an instant, how vital it is for Internet representations of people's lives and careers to be accurate and true in the modern world? Of course, you'll now puff up and declare that that's precisely why you have so many safeguards and rules and high hurdles in place... but, guess what, all your techno-clutter and hysterical splattering failed you miserably when Nick Bougas innocently entered your realm and simply sought to place a more informative and complete biography on your site. The fact that you still haven't shown even a sliver of real appreciation (not form letter passages) for that gesture, speaks volumes about your style and lack of grace. You're much too obsessed with spanking and spewing venom on people who , in this case, were only trying to be helpful. I must say, I even saw hard evidence in the employee chat records of a bit of poisonous proggy "agenda" inherent in the harassment I endured at the hands of your editor called "Greyfell". If he's willing to be honest with himself, he'll know precisely what I'm referring to and realize that such bias-based actions shouldn't exist in this environment. If I have your assurance that the bio that is now displaying on your site is not going to be further destroyed by your wrecking crew, we won't have any more conflicts. If that's not agreeable, then kindly ERASE MY BIO PAGE completely. If for no other reason, you should restore my ability to post because I'm a virtual walking show biz encyclopedia and could offer invaluable info for other subject bios in time. I fully intend to learn more about the complex procedures Wikipedia demands for info inclusion. I'd know a lot more already if your editors had been more devoted to a healthy end result than unproductive and vindictive bullying.

                                                                                       Amen, Nick Bougas

Megerflit (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Nick Bougas[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, those other editors are no more employees than you are. We don't do this for a living, we're all unpaid volunteers. You have been told so before. Secondly, going off on a rant about other editors is no way to get you unblocked when your uncollegial attitude is the reason for the block. See WP:NOTTHEM - the reason for the block is not others' conduct. And while JamesBWatson did not literally quote you, quotes such as "There are no "Issues" with the info on this page other than the fact that your hack editors turned it into a drab, soulless, uninformative shell of what it was" are no better and basically express the same sentiment, with more insults. And if you consider this or this "unproductive and vindictive bullying", Wikipedia isn't the project for you. Huon (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2017 (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.

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

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

                    "Collegial" means "confused", right? (rimshot)                               
                                                             Megerflit (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Nyuk, Nyuk ... Nicky B.[reply]