User talk:Bridies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

User talk:Bridies/Archive 1

Re:Jungle Strike[edit]

I actually noticed it was a project of yours after I mentioned it at WPVG, and I'd considered notifying you about it—but it looks like you beat me to the punch. It's a solid article, so I doubt it'll have any trouble passing GAN. On the topic of old potential noms, though: do you think rhythm game could still make it at FAC? Does the prospect even interest you? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing:I think about it sometimes; I actually had an institutional Shibboleth account recently and stockpiled a load of journal articles on research into games for music and physical education, which was the main complaint last time, if I recally correctly. Someone, however, recently complained that the article doesn't cover enough of the latter day Japanese scene, and it looks like we'd need Japanese-language sourcing to cover that aspect. Which could obviously be another large headache. bridies (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I actually didn't realize that it failed at FAC—I didn't even remember that it'd been nominated. It's a strong article as-is, but I see why 1b complaints might be raised. Well, if you ever expand the article for another go at FAC, hit me up and I'll copyedit the new content. (And I'll make sure that I work faster than I did the first time.) I know you're not super active on Wikipedia anymore, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing:I might take you up on that, if I can ever get unblocked and be allowed to add things to Wiki again. ;) bridies (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Calidum 03:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for resumption of edit warring on same page (Red Dead Redemption) after expiration of last block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bridies (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I am not edit warring, and have made exactly 1 revert today (fewer than Calidum). My first edit (reverted), was not the same as the lst "edit war": I compromised by removing the mention from the infobox and instead added a couple of sentences to the prose (the latest editor on talk said he had no problem with the cat, let alone a prose mention; merely the infobox). My next edit (after Calidum's [ first revert, with a crass threat) compromised further by not adding the cat and added merely the prose mentions. The Calidum reverted wholesale, yet again. I am the one compromising here; Calidum is the one reverting wholesale (more reverts than me today). There is nothing on the talk page about the prose mentions, no one has objected to them, and that entire paragraph is about similar themes. People have argued against the infobox mentions and the category, neither of which I added in the last edit. It should have been uncontroversial, and was not a revert; I have been blocked before I could even point this out to Calidum. Calidum also made that last revert without even a talk page reply. I should be unblocked, as I have done nothing wrong, and Calidum should be boomerang-ed bridies (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a perfect example of the "D" part of WP:BRD. Resumption of any similar edits to ones that led to an original EW blocks is considered to be a continuation of the same edit war. after the block expired, it was your responsibility to return to the discussion, and make no further edits to the article until consensus had been reached. Note also that the definition of edit war is clear: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" - this is exactly what you're doing. Nobody wants you indeffed (at least nobody that I know of). What the project needs is discussion to reach consensus - yeah, that means that sometimes your desired edits won't make the final cut. Just because you're waiting for the next step in discussion, it does not mean "go ahead and make an edit" because Wikipedia has no time limit. If you intend to appeal this block again, please read WP:GAB, WP:AAB and WP:NOTTHEM first the panda ₯’ 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

  • Revert 1, Revert 2. 45 minutes apart. -- Calidum 05:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In point of fact, you made three reverts, not two. The number isn't terribly important. Resumption of reverts almost immediatley after expiration of a block for breaching 3RR on the same page is sufficient to block. One is often enough. It demonstrates that you have not learned anything from your last block and that a pattern of disruptive conduct continues. If you keep up this denial, you will end up being blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23:I made one revert. The others are different edits, simply, and had significantly different content. I am amazed that you have not even admonished Calidum, whose sole modus operandi is to tag-team revert while saying "discuss on talk", while, in fact, refusing to discuss on talk (still waiting on a reply to my last argument, which again is about the cat, not the prose edits; the other antagonist, who has cited nothing but an essay, and not a single source, has asked me to "please just stop" citing anything on talk). Seriously, get fucked User:Bbb23, I dare you to indef-me. It would be an amazing testament to Wiki's (and it's admins') contempt for good content contributers if I was indef-ed over this garbage. bridies (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The first revert occurred on 16 October at 16:10 when you added the clone material to the body and restored the clone cat. The second revert was on 17 October at 03:03 when you reverted Hahnchen. The third revert was on 17 October at 03:44 when you restored the material to the body. If you think that a revert is only when your edit is an exact undo of another editor, you really need to familiarize yourself with the policy because that is completely wrong. As for indeffing you, that was both a warning and advice. It is standard to impose escalating blocks for similar misconduct, so I'm trying - without success - to let you know that you won't help yourself if you persist. Finally, don't be distracted by what you perceive to be misconduct by other editors. If you adjust your own conduct, the other problems will take care of themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23:Garbage. I am not labouring under the impression that as long as the edit is not exactly the same it is not a revert; it is not a revert if it's a compromised version, and certainly not if it's a completely different edit. None of my edits added the term to the infobox, which is the only thing there is anything like a consensus against. My final edit added only the prose. No one has mentioned the prose, so how can it have been controversial? Don't presume to offer me advice; who are you to do so? Go back to adding bigger numbers to your "admin stats". bridies (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And as for "helping myself", recall that Wikipedia works thus: I give my time and skills, for free, to add new content and improve content (I used to give a hell of a lot of it; and I still give a decent amount). It's not me who loses anything from being blocked. bridies (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Come back soon[edit]

Don't let this place get to you for too long. There's too much work to be done to lose good editors like you. Please come back before long. -Thibbs (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another editor bites the dust. Though I had little interaction with you, from what I heard, you do great work. Keep up the faith and if you do come back soon, I would welcome you wholeheartedly but if not, I don't blame you. I wish you the best of luck in your retirement. Vaya con Dios! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2014[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2014
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2014, the project has:


To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)