Jump to content

User talk:Cali boi16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cali boi16 (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 30 September 2009 (→Change 123(Continued)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hi, Cali boi16. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ようこそ
  • You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.
  • Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.
  • Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.
  • When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

--  Chzz  ►  02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles

Death Note

Still the source does not confirm anything about shinigami. First you noted that those films are different media because of their countries or styles, and now you say it's because one has yet to be released. They are still live-action films. Just because it wasn't released it doesn't mean it has to have its own section. The length from the section is not long enough to divide it so please don't split the section without a proper claim.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then the subcategory. That is at least reasonable. This way the categories will not be seperate. Instead 2010 American Remake will be listed under Live-action films. This way we both get what we want. The article does confirm information as to the status of the use of 'shinigami' in the upcoming film. And your deletion of my other information concerning Joseph Gordon-Levitt role in the upcoming film. He has been approached for a role, that is fact. Why was that deleted? I didn't respond to you earlier because frankly I didn't know how. I'm a newbie when it comes to wikipedia. And also I'd like to apologize for my actions. It is simply that my frustration has grown over your constant editing of my work for bogus reason such as speculation. I have not posted speculation, nor has the article speculated. If it was speculation then the statement would be more like: "it can be guessed that the "shinigami" characters will be CGI." The wording used in the article does not imply speculation. It gives updated information as to the status of how shinigami will be generated in the upcoming film.

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Death Note. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Note

You are currently edit warring on Death Note so please explain your behavior at WT:ANIME#Another conflict in Death Note. --KrebMarkt 17:56, 23 September 2009 (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).

Cali boi16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's kinda hard to explain urself wen ur being blocked from doing so. Look, all I want is to add a subcategory to live-action as a way of compromise. If I wanted to continue this stupid edit war then why wud I be willing to compromise? And if I have broken such a 3 revisions rule, then by that reasoning Tintor2 as well broke that rule. He constantly deleted my updates such as news that Joeseph Gordon Levitt was being reached out for a role and written article fact about the statuse of shinigami characters to be used in the upcoming role. But suddenly wen I try to fix wat Tintor keeps deleting as irrelevant information or speculation I am the bad guy. Tintor2 wudnt stop editing my work, and he DID NOT reach out to me on my talk page. This is a complete outrage. Maybe if the administrator who blocked me was actually competent he wud actually investigate further instead of immediately taking Tintor2's word for it.

Decline reason:

I'm looking at your edits, and I see a pattern of editing that is disruptive. When other editors asked you to stop editing the section heading, you responded (here) with "I don't really feel like it...", which is unacceptable. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you're not here to collaborate, then you're going to find it difficult indeed to contribute at all. Use the talk pages, discuss why your edit makes the article better - if you have a point, others will see that, consensus will emerge, and the article will end up better. If others disagree, then move on. You can't just enforce your will through brute force and edit warring - you'll be blocked rapidly. So, your request is declined. The conduct of other editors is not material to this review. I should add that calling the blocking admin incompetent is not really a great way to endear yourself to the reviewing admin. Do remember that our civility rules and our rules against personal attacks apply to blocked editors as well. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:20, 23 September 2009 (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.

This is bullshit! Tintor2 broke the three revision rule as well. Why is he let off? And the only reason for my disruption is the fact that his edits of my work are frustrating.

(edit conflict) To the reviewing admin: I have been watching this dispute unfold, and Cali boi16 has made no attempts to compromise; he merely slightly tweaked the text he was adding to Death Note. In comparison, a number of reverting editors have left notes in their edit summaries asking him to stop edit warring and discuss his desired changes on Talk:Death Note, which he completely ignored. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay you idiot. if you actually LOOK on the talk page you will see I did leave a response. Just because you're Tintor2's fuck buddy you guys think you can push people around. Get off his dick and actually look at the facts. Is it so wrong to add a subcategory. Tintor2 is the one who kept deleting my information. As well he broke the 3 revision rule. Why does he get off?

{{helpme}} removed—the template should not be used to draw more attention to your unblock request. One template is enough. Dendodge T\C 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. I have been trying to assist you here in good faith. As for your claim, I just re-checked both the talk page and its edit history, and you were nowhere to be found - could you please provide a link to a diff supporting your claim that you've left a comment there? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Another_conflict_in_Death_Note

I posted near the bottom of the page. And good faith? Ha. We'll see.

You were asked specifically to discuss your changes on Talk:Death Note days ago; this is the request you ignored. You only posted on WT:ANIME in response to the sudden attention a few hours ago. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) Yes, I saw that - and also that it implied that no one else had the right to edit your work (see WP:OWN for reasons why this is inaccurate) and threats against them, such as "This is disrespectful and I will not continue to allow this disrespect to go on unanswered." You also posted after reverting the Death Note article multiple times, and just before you were blocked - so meaningful discussion was impossible, as the damage had already been done. You seem to be digging a hole, here - it might not be a bad idea to take a deep breath and step away from the project for a while. Your block is short - less than a day, now - so come back tomorrow and edit within policy, and you'll have no problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look, if I'd actually known how to do all that I would have. So you're saying Tintor2 has the right to vandalize my work, but I don't have the right to put up my work. This is completely bias. I apologize for my heated rhetoric but u have no idea of my frustration with Tintor2. Tommarow I will respectfully try to explain myself. All I want is to add a subcategory under Live-action which should be warranted and add more detail described in the article without it being deleted moments after or undone by that jackass Tintor2.

Tintor2 was not vandalizing by removing your work. Please take note of the disclaimer that appears under the edit box every time you make an edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (emphasis in original). In addition, Tintor2 is not the only editor who reverted your edits. This usually means that there's something wrong with the edits you're attempting to make, instead of some sort of personal vendetta against you by whomever is reverting. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, ok so it's alright for Tintor2 break the 3 revsion rule if he's in the right? That's completely hypocritical. It's okay if you break the revision rule if ur right but if your wrong we'll use that rule to block you. That's completely bias. As I said, before I was blocked I was willing to compromise by addition of a subcategory instead of seperating the sections entirely. Is that not warranted?

This isn't about Tintor2's behavior, but if it makes you feel better, he should have stopped before breaking 3RR himself. If another admin cares to discuss this with him, they should feel free, but I'm not going to do it because I really don't do enough of this type of work to feel comfortable with it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're upset - I'd be too. But you need to stop with the personal attacks. I will lock this page for the duration of your block if you insult another editor. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(personal attacks removed per WP:TPO)

Stop it now & cool down. Really, your anger won't make Death Note article better. All you are doing is losing your credibility. When you will bring better & more acceptable arguments to your view people will be less willing to hear you. --KrebMarkt 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for the sake of argument. I'm arguing because of the injustice u administrators allow to occur. You allow Tintor2 to break 3RR himself and he gets off scotfree. But wen I do it shame on me. It's crap. What kind of administrators take exception for some and not others? Might as well just let everybody break the 3RR rule if you let him. If you administrators can't answer that then where is YOUR credability?

First i'm not an admin. Second your outburst off anger is inefficient to achieve what you want. Third from some editors point of view, your edits were vandalism and 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism edit. Starting edit conflict as an IP then switching to registered account that was near-only created to edit that article support that view. --KrebMarkt 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack removed] I didn't vandalize. [personal attack removed] This was all becuz sume [one] wudnt stop editing my work. I only changed to my registered account because I realized I made it over 6 months ago. But of course you wudnt question that possiblity. It's alot easier for [people] to assume instead of ask. Of course I'm pissed off! [personal attack removed] (edited to remove personal attacks per WP:TPO)

There are a limited number of exceptions to WP:3RR, which are blatant vandalism, libelous, biased, clear copyright violations, content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, and unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). The statement that you were adding to the article was an exact copy from the Variety source. This is unacceptable and Tintor2 removal of the statement was perfectly within Wikipedia's policies as it was a clear copyright violation. —Farix (t | c) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(personal attacks remove per WP:TPO)

Cali, I ask that you please calm down. You're angry and offended; you've made that very obvious. Further outbursts are not going to help your case. No one is calling your edits vandalism, it was merely pointed out that they could be viewed as vandalism under a broad interpretation of policy. As for why Farix mentioned Florida, this is because the servers Wikipedia runs on are physically located in Florida, and as a result, content on Wikipedia must comply with Florida's state laws, regardless of where in the world you live. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even under Floida law. You are allowed to copy as long as you credit the author or source. Which is what I did. If my work is sourced there should be no problem. That [person] is accusing me of not sourcing or sourcing incorrectly. He insults my intelligence and you think I'm not gunna get angry? I'm competent enough to source material correctly. (edited to remove personal attack per WP:TPO)

Ani Notification

Hello, Cali boi16. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_continues_repeated_personal_attacks_even_while_blocked. While I believe you are currently unable to respond, you have the right to at least be informed about this. Exxolon (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Cali, please be more careful with the tone of your comments. I understand that you probably feel your desired additions to Death Note are important, but keep in mind this is only the internet; ultimately getting angry again will only get you back in trouble. If necessary, step away from the computer for 15 minutes or so to collect your thoughts whenever you feel yourself getting frustrated, and if you really need to vent, feel more than free to do so on my talk page - I would much rather you shout at me than at other editors and get blocked again for incivility. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but try to understand, I don't take work I contribute lightly to have it so easily dropped as I spend my own time contributing it. You have been more than lenient with me concerning my actions, but I ask that you not lecture me like a child. It insults my intelligence. All the while I still appreciate your help.
You need to keep in mind, Wikipedia is the product of volunteer effort - almost all edits made to it are on someone's own time, and most of those people also view their work as quite important. I have been lenient with you because I have seen what you can contribute to discussions when you are calm and level-headed, and I would love to see what you could make of that in terms of article editing. One last note, I am not trying to lecture or speak down to you, and am definitely not trying to insult you, and I truly apologise if that is how I seem to you. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change 123(Continued)

We can continue here if you want. Cali boi16 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: chapter 14 title is borderline. see MOS:JAPAN#Titles_of_books_and_other_media. I won't press the issue but keep that point in mind in your future edits. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Btw, I was wondering if you were going to continue on the Change 123 article by adding a reference section concerning your French reviews added to establish notability. Dinoguy1000 again recommended I ask you whether or not you are willing to take up the job. Cali boi16 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cali_boi16&oldid=317155164"