User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Led Zeppelin III. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Led Zeppelin III. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Why must I be the one blocked when I am the one who is sweating, explaining his changes while other editors simply undo/revert mine with no reasons given? Please go read the history of that page and see me state my case repeatedly against others who are the real disruptors, making changes and undoing edits based on their own unsourced whims? Please, I believe in fair justice. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we all believe in fair justice, but let's just take a step back and look what the actual dispute is about. I have done significant work on Led Zeppelin, including finding reliable and authoritative sources for a lot of material, but the recent edits look like a trivial spat over some minor inconsequential detail. So my personal opinion on the matter is - Who cares? Does it really matter? I would forget all about this silly feud and find another article to edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I care and it really matters to me, otherwise I wouldn't be engaged in this battle. As I've said before, there are people who are looking for this type of music, because I was once a person like this. That is the whole point of having a genre box, is it not? Whether it is trivial to you or not, does not invalidate it. I do not care how you feel about it. I have made a genre change, and have explained my position multiple times. Why then are my points being ignored? Why then do you believe Tkbrett when he continues to claim my edits to be unsourced, when I have stated multiple times that the Rolling Stone article is my source? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I repeat - I would forget all about this silly feud and find another article to edit. I care being out of raspberry jam in the kitchen fridge, but I don't fight tooth and nail complaining about it on the internet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to forget about it just because you and your mob have ganged up on me. Best believe that. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be for rational and logical discussions? Well, that's what I'm having. You people think you're just going to block me and create pages for me because you think if there's a crowd of voices, mine is going to be drowned out. It's not. You will hear mine. Rest assured. I have perfect reason for what I'm doing. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Please block this user. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Um, what did I do?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tkbrett (✉) 11:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Led Zeppelin III shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Led Zeppelin III. Geardona (talk to me?) 16:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Led Zeppelin III. Geardona (talk to me?) 16:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Battleground editing

Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. It is very possible that you could be reblocked, maybe even indefinitely, if you continue the current trajectory you're on. I don't want you to end up blocked, but your edit warring is unacceptable and goes against Wikipedia policy. Please stop edit warring and being so confrontational, it's not going to help you here in the long run. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My guy, do you realise I only adopt this tone because I am being unheard? When Tkbrett and his co-conspirators can revert my changes without saying why, and then you listen to them and ignore my arguments? What other measures are left for me? I am not an edit warrior when I am able to back up my edits and the others are not able. Why are you giving all this heat to me and not to them? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You are being heard, it's just nobody agrees with you. As the guideline says:

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

You are at a serious risk of being indefinitely blocked and unable to edit Wikipedia, unless you stop this immediately. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The community can reject what I say, yes. But they must have reasons for rejecting it. Saying they don't agree that LZIII is a psychedelic folk album means absolutely nothing when the cited source calls it one. I have reasons, they have none. So why should I be blocked? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The reasons have been given, that you disagree with them is obvious, but continuous edit-warring is not the way to go. Go present your case at the talk page of the article, Talk:Led Zeppelin III, otherwise you will be booted from this project. That is pretty much a guarantee if you persist. Zaathras (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There are no reasons. Stop lying. Link them.

My case is cited, its rejection is not.

Why do the detractors not go and state their case with the talk page? Until then, let my changes with their citation remain, as is Wikipedia policy.

If you ban me with undue process, I will appeal. I will not let this go until I have been given clear and uncontestable reasons. I have not, thus far. I will not be bullied by you and your WP:GAME tactics. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here: the source provided says "The elephant-balled blues rock that had defined Zeppelin’s sound was now tempered down, replaced by a heady strain of wispy, mystic folk rock" hence the "folk rock" genre listed. Nowhere in the source is the word "psychedelic" even mentioned let alone the genre "psychedelic folk." Your edits are therefore WP:OR as you are basing it on your views and not what the source explicitly says. Even your arguments for "trippy folk" fail as the source never uses that term for the album genre. Instead the header of the Rolling Stone article says "How Led Zeppelin Embraced Trippy Folk Side on ‘III’" but "trippy folk" isn't one term in that sentence. It is saying they embraced their "trippy folk side", the word trippy modifying "folk side." Wikipedia works on consensus and you clearly don't have it. Using alts and IPs to go to war over something nobody agrees with you on will likely only lead to you being blocked and the article protected. As it stand you have currently been indefinitely blocked from Led Zeppelin III but are free to edit elsewhere. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Who says "trippy folk" isn't one term? You? Sounds like WP:OR because you aren't the author. The header of the articles says explicitly that Led Zeppelin embraced their trippy folk side, as in their psychedelic folk side. This is because historically, at this point, Page and Plant were out in Wales getting stoned and making trippy music. But this is WP:OR so I won't add it.

My point is that the article is explicit and you are accusing me of original research, and yet you come to conclusions on behalf of the author over what the header means? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Who says 'trippy folk' isn't one term": trippy folk does not have a hyphen, so trippy is modifying folk side. See compound modifier. Tkbrett (✉) 17:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You may block me, friend. That does not mean this battle is over. Someone else will come and see the light. My cited sources have been disregarded for no reason. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I explained it as clearly as I could. You have no sources that explicitly say "psychedelic folk" or anything other than "folk rock" so your edits are not supported by reliable sources. That alone is reason enough for them to be reverted. The fact that you have used an army of IPs and this account to edit war your own original research is another. This has been explained to you by multiple editors and yet you persist. At this point it is probably best for you to just step back and drop the stick. You don't have sources, you don't have consensus, but you do now have at least one article on multiple watch lists and a block history on your account. You aren't helping by repeatedly ignoring everyone who tries to help. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I do have a source, you just chose to ignore it and play Wikipedia games to skirt around the truth. Then you and your team decided to block me.

In your folly, you think this will stop me.

You see, I will always carry this album with me. And wherever I am, whenever I'm sitting by the countryside stoned, I will play LZIII and I will hear the psych-folk and think to myself "Hey, this is some trippy shit."

And guess what? I will come back to this article and change it to the genre it deserves. Month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until the day I die. Your resistance is futile. I speak the truth. Truth is patient and is glorified and stands in time. Lies fall. You can block this account or this IP, I will find new ones. You can lock the article, I will find a way. Time and time again, over and over and over and over again.

Hopefully by then you virgin fucks have found some pussy and this page is run by a more sensible people. You can prune this fucking account, it's useless to me now. Mark my words, bitches. I will be back. You are in MY game, and trust me it will be a long one. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This comment alone should honestly be grounds for a full indefinite siteblock, per WP:NPA and the threatening of sockpuppetry. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

HighPriestOfSaturn, please remember one thing about genres, any and all sources/references are also Just someone's opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

All your attempts at disruption will fail. Please find another hobby. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328: This editor attempted to block evade through the IP 41.246.129.111. See here: [1] Tkbrett (✉) 13:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Tkbrett, I have blocked that IP for a week. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Make a cup of tea, @Tkbrett. You're trapped in my time loop for all of infinity. Like Dr Strange and Dormammu. You won't win this at all. I would tag @Cullen328, but I fear he may be an ancestor by the time this game is complete. But he can watch us from the etheric and astral planes if he so wishes. You will lose, Tkbrett, you will go down.

"On we sweep with threshing oar

Our only goal will be the western shore"

Led Zeppelin III will be a psychedelic folk album, final and unchangeable, if it takes me 10, 30 or 50 years. I will NOT forget. I have invested a LOT of psychic energy into this. Pure determination. You are wrong, Tkbrett, and trying to get your gang of neckbeard virgin losers against me shall not help you, for my will alone is enough for a confederacy of three warring planet systems.

ZOSO. See you again, and again, and again, and again, until I wear you down into delirium or until you see sense or until I construct reality so that more and more sources start to appear that curry my favour. 41.246.129.14 (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked your talk page access due to your grotesque threats of disruption above. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. I have also semi-protected the article for one year. If you engage in any further disruption after that year passes, I will semi-protect the article infinitely. If you gain advanced levels with a sockpuppet account, I will infinitely extended confirmed protect the article. If you make an attempt to circumvent that, I will infinitely fully protect the article. Hoping that I will die is not a good strategy. If I die, other younger administrators will do what I just explained. Your disruption has become part of the history of this particular article forever, and will never be tolerated. Feel free to blog elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. We shall see. 41.246.129.14 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Enjoy the Solar Eclipse today @Cullen328. I love you, old man. I have no quarrels with you. Enjoy your twilight years. Hang out with your grandchildren. This is not your battle anymore. 41.246.129.14 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a battle in any sense. It is routine enforcement against your disruptive editing. As for "twilight years", I am 72 and in pretty good health. Many of my relatives lived much longer. No twilight for me. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, is it alright to apply similar protection for Tkbrett's pages as well? HPOS mentioned a desire to terrorize them. Just wanna add since personal grudges and harassment against fellow users shouldn't go unnoticed. Carlinal (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)