User talk:CreecregofLife

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

3) Edit warring will get you

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

5) Most of the editors here are doing their best to improve the articles. You should pro-actively

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

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: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 {{

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 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

@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

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

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 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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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]

@

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

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 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 {{

I generally remove, and replace, line breaks within Wikipedia whenever I see them for these reasons of accessibility, as {{

I know that line breaks are very commonly used throughout Wikipedia, but for accessibility, there are generally better options. I hope this makes sense!--

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 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

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: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

  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.

  @

  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

  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

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

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

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