User talk:KyleJoan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:53, 7 January 2017

Welcome!

Hello, KyleJoan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers, L A X 10:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your block expires and you go straight back to the same edit war! If you continue when this block expires, the next one will be even longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that there is no 24-hour revert allowance and you don't have to exceed three reverts to get yourself blocked. Frankly, I'm getting sick of the confrontational approach you two are showing towards to each other, and you'll be heading for an indef block if you don't tone it down - fighting should be left for inside the ring, and editing Wikipedia should be an altogether more cooperative approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I promise to unconditionally stop edit warring and discuss disagreements as well as seek second opinions before making bold edits and/or reverts. I intend to start this process as soon as possible and prove to the Wikipedia community that I can abide by rules at all costs and be a model editor. DantODB 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK, that sounds good enough, and your block record isn't so bad. You are now unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you so much! Cheers! 21:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We both got lucky

We both got lucky here.

Let's agree to play nice...if you have an issue with an edit I make (be it "bold" or otherwise), address it with me first before you go right into revert mode, and I'll do the same for you.

Not every single edit needs to devolve into tit-for-tat, so let's both think before we dig our heels in, OK?

Too much "falling on the sword" just leads to bleeding to death.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I agree. Just know that sometimes I do find your edits speculative and not reflecting the present and I will take it to you directly if it ever happens again. Also, I still haven't forgotten everything you've said about/to me as well as the subtle personal threats, so I'm not going to be overly chummy. Thanks. DantODB 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not asking/don't want to be chummy, just saying we BOTH need to take a different approach, because the old way clearly wasn't working, and next time the admins may not be so nice. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Including times where you threaten me with a block, I might add. You have more to lose than I do. DantODB 22:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm saying we both have to do things different...me not being so aggressive and taking things personal, and you not being so quick to revert things. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Cool. DantODB 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

205 Live

Just so there are no misunderstandings, the note is just to let people know that the cruiserweights/205 Live roster are considered a part of Raw...never assume that everybody just automatically "gets it".

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Well, it is under Raw and the headline is smaller, so it's not an assumption, it just happens that it is already set that way. Let's take it to the talk page, then. DantODB 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Also, you just directly reverted an edit, which happened to be done by me. Just a reminder. DantODB 21:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I reverted...force of habit (I gotta watch myself). I also noticed another editor agreed with my reasoning for keeping the note on the article's talk page. The whole reason it's there is so people won't get any ideas to move the section. You can't just take for granted that people automatically know. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: I think it's ironic that the point being made is that so people don't move the 205 Live into its own section and the last person that did that was you. Another user corrected your edit of making the 205 Live section its own brand and put it back under Raw on the personnel page. Just an observation. DantODB 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna.....

You may wanna weigh in on this as you were the other editor who told them La Luchadora is not an official name. They are adding it to Lynch and Bliss now with a YouTube video for a source.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WarMachineWildThing: Will do! DantODB 21:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is silly Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-war issue

Hi DantODB,

I understand Vjmlhds has been doing edit-war on certain Wikipedia pages. Yes, he wrote something on my talk page and it is very disruptive of this person to write something like that. He turned the Antenna TV page into an edit-war on me. We all worked very hard revising and adding information onto Wikipedia pages. We do not deserved to be disruptive or disrespectful from that person. Cbears22 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:52, 7 January 2017 edit Cbears22 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,407 edits →‎Edit-war issue: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:53, 7 January 2017 edit undo Cbears22 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,407 edits m →‎Edit-war issue Next edit →
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Hi DantODB,		Hi DantODB,

	I understand Vjmlhds has been doing edit-war on certain Wikipedia pages. Yes, he wrote something on my talk page and it is very disruptive of this person to write something like that. He turned the Antenna TV page into an edit-war on me. We all worked very hard revising and adding information onto Wikipedia pages. We do not deserved to be disruptive or disrespectful from that person.		I understand Vjmlhds has been doing edit-war on certain Wikipedia pages. Yes, he wrote something on my talk page and it is very disruptive of this person to write something like that. He turned the Antenna TV page into an edit-war on me. We all worked very hard revising and adding information onto Wikipedia pages. We do not deserved to be disruptive or disrespectful from that person. [[User:Cbears22\|Cbears22]] ([[User talk:Cbears22\|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)