Jump to content

User talk:TJ Spyke

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TJ Spyke (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 22 May 2014 (→May 2014: FT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 30. Archives prior to February 10, 2008 (Archive 16) were compiled by Werdnabot/Shadowbot3 and can be found at the right hand side of this page. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Help

Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

May 2013

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 31 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, and why some people don't think my edits (which never actually harmed articles, and actually improve them. And it annoyed me when a editor would revert the WHOLE edit instead of just the parts they feel were against the rules) were just beneficial to the site. I think enough time has passed that I have been able to reflect on it and change. I just want to be able to work on articles again and improve them, and will do my best not to violate the rules. I was actually working with an editor about making proposals to update the rules with common sense changes. I don't want to break any rules or be disruptive, I just want to be able to help and will do whatever I am asked to get my ban lifted. TJ Spyke 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't find this request particularly compelling, I think the best way forward would be if you indicated if you would be willing to abide by the conditions proposed below and them post a new unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (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.

Hi TJ. In the future, there are bound to be things that will annoy you again; wikipedia is big, there are people that are somewhat annoying, and a text-only medium as wikipedia is bound to provide misunderstandings that might also annoy you. You have a history of literally years of ANI threads and blocks. Your past behavior around problematic behavior and blocks have seemed to have been, ignore people who point out problems in your behaviour, and when it comes to blocks to just sit them out, and not changing anything in your behaviour. From your request here, what I read is that you say you understand you deserved it, but really you were doing the right thing. It should be obvious from your block log now that it is not. So you now say you will be doing your best not to break the rules, but you said that before, and it didn't work out. I really can't see how it is any different now, and any effective unblock request should address that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I know my edits were good and helpful, I understand that the admins in charge don't want those edits. So I would just avoid making those edits. I would try to get the community to adopt policy changes for stuff that would improve articles (and maybe stem the tide of editors leaving), but would follow the rules in place. I have improved in the past, like how I stopped engaging in edit wars (a problem I had early), so I can change and get better. I just want a chance to show I can do better, I have been a very good editor (I was one of the primary editors that got the Wii article to FA status) and my only problems are that fixing redirects is frowned upon. Even though it is just plain silly to be not allowed, I will abide by it. TJ Spyke 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a piece of friendly advice: Just avoid changing redirects altogether. Don't "fix" them for any reason. They are obviously a weak spot in your editing history and I have very little confidence that you even understand the community rules in this area. The edit history of your IP account shows that you've been making changes like this several times per month even since your current block was put in place. Not all are bad, but several clearly violate WP:NOTBROKEN. I don't think you have any self control when it comes to "fixing" redirects, so if you're allowed back from this third indef block, you should really resist the temptation to touch any redirects at all. -Thibbs (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the reviewing admin: If you are interested in restoring TJ Spyke's access, I'd strongly recommend that it be a conditional unblock based on a firm commitment by TJ Spyke to leave all redirects entirely alone from now on. And obviously he'd need to be monitored for a period to ensure his compliance. He's not a worthless editor by any means, but the problems he does have are utterly intractable in my opinion. The only way to control the issue would be to impose zero tolerance for his redirect "fixing" behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would be considered leaving all redirects alone? For example, would fixing a link from "Wrestlemania" to "WrestleMania" violate it? Or "North America Eastern Time Zone" to "Eastern Time Zone"? I.e. would I have to avoid changing any links, or what? Assuming I do get unblocked. TJ Spyke 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any unblock would be basically under probation. You seem quite capable of finding new and novel ways to do stuff that the community either doesn't want happening, or currently doesn't want you to do. I would like to discuss with your blocking admin and ANI the following unblock conditions:
  1. You are banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year. If you would want to change [[Wrestlemania]] to WrestleMania, you'll use a piped link that conserves the target as in [[Wrestlemania|WrestleMania]]
  2. You will observe a 1 revert rule for six months
  3. For the duration of a year, any administrator can unilaterally place you under a topic ban for any topic and any length up to six months. In case you believe that a specific topic ban isn't justified, you may request the topic ban lifted on ANI. The topic ban will remain in effect until the discussion on ANI is closed as not to uphold the topic ban. You will not request revocation of a topic ban for 30 days after any request to lift a topic ban has not been granted. If you are placed under a topic ban under this provision, and it is not subsequently revoked, a new 12 month period starts
  4. You will place these conditions at the top of your talkpage for their duration.
These are fairly heavy conditions, but at the moment I'm personally not comfortable with more lenient conditions. If you agree to these, the next step will be discussing them with the admin that blocked you, and further discussion on AN. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More violations of your editing restrictions

Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed this edit just now and I think we need to finally get some clarification on the "TJ Spyke is banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year" part of your restrictions. I've asked the admins at AN/I to give us a hand interpreting this line. Please feel free to join the conversation if you feel so inclined. The thread can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is restricted editor TJ Spyke violating his restrictions? -Thibbs (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly violating the conditions under which you were previously unblocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is restricted editor TJ Spyke violating his restrictions?). 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.  Yunshui 雲水 10:56, 16 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't change the target of the wikilink. The link had (song) in it and the article for the song didn't have (song) in it, so this just simplified it. Honestly, this would be like saying I can't fix a disambiguation link. I could understand if I had fixed other links on the page, but this one doesn't seem to be a violation of the rules put on me. TJ Spyke 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You did change the target of the wikilink. Before your edit the article linked to Unconditionally (song) (a redirect to the Katy Perry song Unconditionally) After your edit the article linked to Unconditionally, directly to the song not through the redirect. The 1st condition of your unblock above says "You are banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year. If you would want to change [[Wrestlemania]] to WrestleMania, you'll use a piped link that conserves the target as in [[Wrestlemania|WrestleMania]]" In that condition it gives an example where you could not change the target of the wikilink, you would need to pipe the link to get the correct capitalization. In this case you changed the wikilink and removed the piping. You were warned that you were violating the unblock conditions and advised to discuss them with the unblocking admin but did not and continued on. I see no reason to unblock you as you do not seem to understand the conditions on which you were unblocked. GB fan 21:17, 16 May 2014 (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.

Simplifying a wikilink: [[target|display]] -> [[target]]
Changing the target of a wikilink: [[target|display]] -> [[display]]
The edits linked at the AN/I thread all fall into the second category - changing the target of a wikilink - the same violation of your editing restrictions that I warned you about twice since your most recent unblock.
Or are you trying to draw a subtle distinction here between "changing" a target and "simplifying" or "fixing" a target? According to a plain-meaning interpretation both "simplifying" and "fixing" targets would require "changing" them which is a violation of your restrictions (if not WP:NOTBROKEN as well). I don't understand for the life of me why you couldn't just leave the wikilinks alone. It boggles the mind. -Thibbs (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disctinction. And someone mentioned Halloween Havoc, is fixing wrong information not allowed either? If someone wrote, for example, that Canada is located in Europe, would it be against the rules to change it to North America? I honestly thought I was helping in this case, not trying to get around my conditions :( TJ Spyke 19:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the conditions of your unblock there is no distinction, changing a link for correcting what you think is wrong with an article or simplifying a link so it does not go through a disambiguation page are both changing the target of a wikilink. You agreed to not make any changes to the target of wikilinks. As I noted above you changed the target and in the Halloween Havoc article you changed a wikilink from Las Vegas, Nevada to Paradise, Nevada. The proper thing to do in the case of Halloween Havoc would have been go to the article talk page and discuss why you feel the link should be changed. Then if the consensus was to change the link it would be changed. Your way was to go to the article and change it to what you believed to be the correct link without discussing it, even though you knew that changing the link would be contentious. You still do not seem to get what the problem is. GB fan 23:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to factually correct something? If an event took place in one location but the article says it took place somewhere else, there needs to be consensus to put the real info in? Every other wrestling article has the locations event listed, not the nearest major city (for example, the WrestleMania 2 article says it took place in Rosemont, not Chicago). Fine, I understand that. TJ Spyke 23:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say for the record that I don't even think you are specifically trying to violate the rules, TJSpyke. I just don't think you have any interest whatsoever in understanding them. Your only interest is in doing what you feel like doing. Sometimes that means you follow community rules, other times that means you follow TJSpyke rules. You seem to have zero motivation to change. I think you have the impression that there aren't any real consequences at Wikipedia since soft-hearted admins have unblocked you so many many times only to see you return to your editing violations. Your block log shows dozens of blocks including three (!) indefinite blocks and there's been next to zero impact in your editing practices. You still do whatever you want and ignore the rules that you find inconvenient. I think it would be just another bad decision in a string of bad decisions to unblock you again. I don't believe you will ever change because I don't believe you're capable of change. It truly saddens me to say that you're a thoroughly hopeless case. -Thibbs (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are consequences, it's why I waited months before trying to get unblocked. I'm just surprised that something like fixing wrong info (the Halloween Havoc article) is bad. I can see why the song article is wrong though, I had second thoughts before posting the change and wish I hadn't hit Submit as there are many bad links i've wanted to fix before then but didn't. TJ Spyke 00:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You agreed to not change the target of wikilinks to be unblocked. You decided on your own to change a wikilink that you knew would be a contentious change and never tried to discuss the change. Because of what you agreed to, you needed to get consensus or at least put in a request for the change you think should be made. GB fan 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it would be contentious, as every other wrestling article uses the correct city name and not the major nearby city. If an event takes place in City A, but the article says it was in City B, I don't think it's contentious to correct the article to say it was in City A. I even put in that City A is a suburb of City B. From what I can tell, it was just one editor who decided to have the article say City B and that others shouldn't change it. I am not sure if there is a project wide consensus on this at WP:PROWRESTLING, but there can be (bring it up there if you want); plus it's common sense. If someone says the White House is in Seattle, do I need to get consensus to say that it's in Washington DC? TJ Spyke 00:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you could think it would not be contentious since you changed the hidden note that said not to change the wikilink. Your two examples of places being wrong are just red herrings. No one would even suspect that saying the White House is in Seattle or Canada being in Europe would be correct. But if you ask, a majority of people would say that the MGM is in Las Vegas Nevada. Most people probably have never heard of Paradise Nevada. I can see that this is not going to go anywhere, you just don't get it. GB fan 00:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring my point. Most people have never heard of Orchard Park, New York, but it would be factually wrong to say that the Buffalo Bills stadium is in Buffalo, New York (it's in Orchard Park, New York). Same with the MGM Grand Garden Arena. As for hidden warnings, anybody can add them. If I change Mitch McConnell's birthplace to Tokyo, Japan and put a hidden warning telling people not to change it, should people not change it because it would be contentious? Check with WP:PROWRESTLING if you want, i'm sure the consensus would support me. TJ Spyke 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you could have started a discussion about it and had it changed very easily without you violating the conditions of your unblock. GB fan 00:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a non-contentious change, that's the only reason I didn't. Jay Leno isn't married to Oprah, so I wouldn't hesitate to change that either. If there was a potentially contentious edit (like changing a link from Burma to it's current name of Myanmar), I would seek out consensus first. TJ Spyke 01:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the conditions of your unblock you should ask for everyone of those to be changed. If you thought there was a problem with the conditions you should have requested clarification from the unblocking admin or at WP:AN not just ignore the conditions. GB fan 01:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have since I didn't think fixing a factually wrong link was against it. I can understand stuff like capitalization (which normally is allowed, but not so under my probation conditions) bothers me but I can't touch them, but I didn't think fixing false info was against it. I hate that this may prevent me from editing. Most of my edits have been good, and the rest have been in a subpage of mine. Very few have been ones that could be used against my conditions. TJ Spyke 01:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the whole thing could have been avoided if you had simply followed my advice to avoid touching all redirect entirely. It's really a pity. I do think this is best for Wikipedia, though. There's no good reason for this community to bend over backward to accommodate your behavior, TJ Spyke. It's clear that you are only willing to work within the rules as long as they serve your personal interests. Ultimately there are plenty of other editors who are volunteering their time at the professional wrestling articles and I'm sure the place won't fall down without your help. It's been a good run but I think it would be best for all parties if you just moved on... -Thibbs (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have avoided the redirect, and I don't want to not be able to help improve articles because of an innocent mistake TJ Spyke 02:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Wikipedia is not designed to just keep TJ Spyke happy, though. Obviously you don't want to stop editing, but that is the consequence of your own actions. It's time to accept that there are consequences to ignoring rules for years and years despite countless warnings and dozens of blocks. Because you are unable to work within the rules you have been blocked from contributing. It's as simple as that. -Thibbs (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can and do abide by the rules, and this time I didn't even get a chance to respond. I got a notification at 6am (before I and most people are even awake) and by 9am I had been blocked without a chance to even explain or defend myself. It's clear I did not flagrantly break the rules, it's like getting locked in prison for accidentally jaywalking. TJ Spyke 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You only follow the rules that you feel like following. Your block log and talk page history shows that very clearly. You were under editing restrictions and had been warned for violating them multiple times over the past few weeks. You chose to ignore the warnings. That was your decision and the consequences are yours to bear. I'm sorry you aren't able to do what you want anymore. If only you had tried a little harder to work within the community-created rules. It is seriously sad that you were unable to make a change in your behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those blocks were from my early editing time, and I improved since then. I am not perfect and make mistakes, but try to learn from them and usually don't make them again. TJ Spyke 02:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to disagree on that. Your wikilink-related problems (specifically your many many warnings for WP:NOTBROKEN/WP:R2D violations) extend back to 2007. You can read all about it here. Despite all of these warnings and blocks related to these violations you never actually learned not to "fix" redirects like this and this... I don't think you understand the rule and I don't think you have any interest in understading it. The rules are of no interest to you unless they agree with your personal rules. The problem is that this isn't your personal Wikipedia. This is a collaborative workspace where community rules must be respected or there are consequences. The consequences you are experiencing are a direct result of your failure to respect the community rules. It's sad, but it shouldn't be very hard to understand. -Thibbs (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I can show that I can follow the rules and have never meant to break them. TJ Spyke 02:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to show that you are willing to follow all of the community's rules because it's clearly not true. -Thibbs (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is true though. TJ Spyke 02:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TJ_Spyke&oldid=609612306"