User talk:Pictureperfect2

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nicki Minaj, 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. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add comments to AfD discussions after they have been closed. It's clearly stated in bright red italics at the top of the page. Jax was correct to revert you and direct you to another discussion page. Do not re-add your comment to the AfD, or you risk being blocked for being disruptive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage with the discussion at Talk:Roe v. Wade § Current Event tag before re-adding the {{Current}} tag a third time to the Roe v. Wade article. As stated there, it's already present at the appropriate section. --N8_wilson 21:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want people to respond in regards to the issue you raised at WP:AN and WP:ANI, you are going to have to provide diffs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:20, 28 June 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).

Pictureperfect2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Provided examples Pictureperfect2 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 28 June 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.

Don't feel many were listening and I don't even know how to link diffs.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples did not show what you claimed and ultimately it's your responsibility to provide the evidence if you're going to open a complaint which means you need to learn how to provide diffs. AndyTheGrump already linked a page that teaches you how to provide diffs. If you still had trouble perhaps they or someone else would have been willing to provide some help. But instead of reading that page and then seeking feedback if you were still confused, you just attacked AndyTheGrump on their talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you think others weren't listening, this seems to be what nearly everyone else thinks about you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I had a look at those article talk pages you did participate in that I mentioned at ANI. And while I didn't check the archives for previous messages, in basically all of them for the messages I could see it's clear at least one editor explained why your edits were unwelcome. There's of course no need for another editor to say the same thing, so even in those cases were you did start a article talk page discussion, there was no consensus or frankly consensus was against your attempted changes. So it's unclear why you keep claiming editors aren't responding to article talk page discussions, they have and have explained why your attempts changes were wrong. (Again whether any particular editor has is irrelevant if someone has sufficiently explained the problems with your edits.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, you're one admin. Kite's another one. The five or so others are patently silly. This site is doomed.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? I'm not an admin but do not disagree with any actions taken in this case. So far you've shown no ability to collaborate productively with other editors nor any real ability to learn when others have tried to teach you, so whatever else you may bring to the table it does not seem suitable for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said I could show or prove the site is faulty. Hugely so. Not being suitable for a disaster of a site? Yes, the site is used a lot. It's poked fun at often as well. Do I think the site can't be saved, no. Will it? Not likely or the magic 8 ball says not in your lifetime. Too much silliness or stupidity.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured you weren't one. Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I was wrong to characterise the discussion at Sig Hansen as I did above. Instead it sounds like the other editor said you should open a discussion which you finally did while complaining there was no point. It looks like after you explained your edit, there was no more reversion so you seem to have instead demonstrated opening a talk page discussion works. While it would have been useful for the other editor to respond if they agreed with your edit once you explained it, frankly I can see why they wouldn't as you spent most of your time on the article talk page attacking them a no-no for article talk pages. Frankly I think you got lucky since your version [1] seems inferior or even grammatically wrong and your talk page message is unclear (are you making a distinction between spoken and written language?) Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing lucky. Another assumption you and others may be making. Professionals are on here. I could well be one. No wonder Wales isn't doing much and other people from the site left. Maybe there will be many more leaving in droves. The one user I pointed out drove away a long time editor. FTLOG, For the love of God, Nil pay attention. People are showing you the difficulties.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reasons they have for not listening could include these things. You saw how they could be flippant even humorous. Not the first person to show problems on this site. Being very busy, some admins are making thousands of edits a month. Andy may be a grump, he was even surly a bit. Says he was gone five years, it was four. That's a while. He's frustrated with the site apparently. It's not easy to provide diffs. Go look at FRb.TG and how fast that user reversed Scarlet Johansson. That user and others (they chimed in, those are the ones being problematic) have taken the BOLD thing too far. They edit in a fashion that goes back to other versions. It's very plain to see there are problems.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My part? I can't go up against five, ten, twelve users who may be incompetent. I did acknowledge the correct contribution of one of them. Again, the admins on here are not listening. You use or weaponize things and don't listen to evidence to the contrary.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even get admins to discuss something. Nil, sort of is. Indef is permanent, again, unjust. Bizarre.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo? I have heard of none of the things you worked on, I'll look them up. Your major contributions. 140K edits. You seem to be one of the problems.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CIR? Citing competence? That's a laugh. Totally out of place for the admin.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make a proper unblock request or are you just going to use your talk page to complain about how Wikipedia is doomed and attack other editors? If it’s the first then fine, if it’s the second then we can just remove your access now and let everyone, yourself included, just get on with their days and save all the hassle and drama. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackkite who is an admin tried to engage with you at ANI but you largely rebuffed their efforts. More importantly as I've tried to explain, when editors have tried to engage with you, you've shown very little ability to learn, and even less willingness to listen. Whatever problems AndyTheGrump may have with Wikipedia, none of what you said explains why you would attack them the way you did when AndyTheGrump was just trying to help you. While I have some familiarity with AndyTheGrump's displeasure with Wikipedia, so I don't think it's actually a significant factor, if I wasn't I wouldn't be surprised AndyTheGrump is unhappy with Wikipedia when their experience is they try to help new editors like you and get unfairly attacked for it. Just as importantly when you do things like that, editors willingness to engage with you goes drastically down hill. And while I haven't looked carefully at the diffs, from what I read when you attacked AndyTheGrump it wasn't the first time you've attack an editor just trying to help not to mention all those times you attacked edits just because of an editorial disagreement. To be clear, from what I've seen I'm fairly sure many people who have responded to you saw at least some of what you've done so it's quite likely your behaviour has influenced how editors have engaged with you. For example although I tried, I did not think my attempts at engagement would be any more successful than others and the more I try the more it's becoming clear my hunch is right. While you've largely stayed away from attacking me so far in your responses I've seen, which is the bare minimum for your engagement with any editor, it seems clear I'm also not getting through to you so there's no point. So this will be my last message. Note that while supplying diffs can be tricky, again if you want to open a complaint about user behaviour they are essential not optional. More importantly, the only way you can learn is if you try and are willing to seek help when you are confused. Attacking the editor who is just trying to teach you how to supply diffs is clearly not going to help in any way it seems to me that should be obvious. Note that engaging with you doesn't mean that we have to accept you're right. From what I can tell, nearly all the time you've been in the wrong and this is what editors have tried to explain to you. You're new here and may not understand our policies and guidelines very well, but you need to be willing and able to learn especially if you're going to make edits concerning living persons since we're very strict with such edits. You may not like how strict we are with information about living persons but we are and there are good reasons for it and it's something you need to accept when editing here. Quick reversions of BLP violations or other poor edits on highly watched pages is not undesirable. It's actually what we expect. It's just sad that BLP violations on less watched pages, of relatively unknown people who are not celebrities, can sometimes escape for ages. (And I'm fairly sure this is one thing that does make Andy grumpy.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, for you to think that is false. I would talk to Black Kite if they were interested. I don't have time to spend hours on here. You can read what the others were saying. These people do not listen. I said I changed an edit to make another one DUE to the way users edit now. I can't believe you don't see the problem users "adopting" articles. There aren't strong enough words to show the catastrophe in the making. Attacking me who is protecting the site.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn into a grump too or for all I care. You're not being genuine. If you were we might be able to salvage this. This is a mere blip in discussions on the site. How many topics would I have to show you? Let's say I could show you 25, 30 major problems on here. You'd continue to feel the site is well run. It's not. To allow the things I pointed out and come after me? Stupid.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you’re clearly not interested in making a proper unblock request, and you’re only interested in using your page to attack other users and complain about the site, I’m saving everyone the trouble and removing your talk page access. If you do take some reflection and reading and wish to request an unblock, you will need to follow the UTRS process. Until such time this time sink is closed. Canterbury Tail talk 23:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is closed. (Waves at @Canterbury Tail: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an advice for you (although given your track record, you probably won’t listen), drop your stubborn attitude and superiority complex. I see that you have been telling experienced editors since day one that they are wrong. Whatever you may be in real life, you still don’t know much about Wikipedia. When multiple (seasoned) editors tell you that you’re wrong, chances are that it’s true. Contrary to your claims that I am trying to “take over” articles and enforcing a “stilted style” in an attempt to make them featured, I am simply trying to give them the highest quality possible. And if you knew this process, you would realize that it takes weeks (and sometimes even months) of high-quality research, writing and review to achieve this. When I reverted your edits, they were simply substandard (it’s obvious we can’t have prose like “Isaac debut as a producer was” in any article let alone FAs or allow your subpar judgement of punctuation). Should you appeal someday again and be allowed to return to editing, be more cooperative and don’t cast aspersions on editors who are only trying to help. FrB.TG (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]