User talk:Iguanu555
Austin Chronicle and warning templates
[edit]Please don't go posting warning templates on users four days after the edits in question and especially don't do it as an act of revenge because they templated you at the time. It isn't conducive to anything. I get it if you are feeling annoyed about your edits to the Austin Chronicle being removed but when people give you advice about why they removed content, it is worth reading the links to understand why they gave you the advice. Crowder may have a genuine issue with the Chronicle but that isn't justification for a wide sweeping statement that the Chronicle's journalistic practices are "shoddy" unless that it a more widely accepted view by a number of reliable sources - not just one person's opinion. Nthep (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It would have been nice if he'd engaged with me as politely and constructively as you have, instead of edit-warring and making utterly spurious and ludicrous accusations of libel.Iguanu555 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting that Beeblebrox is above the rules, only that as a long time contributor he's aware of what he is doing and the template was unnecessary. The first message he left you was also a template so the warning re libel etc is pre-programmed and while it might not always be precise the general message is correct. Nthep (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- As another general note, YouTube videos are basically never considered reliable sources because they lack editorial oversight. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please note the template says "defamatory or libellous." (emphasis added) and that I also mentioned specific policies that you should review in this edit summary [1], which you obviously saw when you reverted that edit. If you came here solely to make negative comments about a particular entity and the only source you provide is YouTube videos, you're not going to have a good experience. Wikipedia has much higher standards for what it allows and does not allow than most of the rest of the user-generated web. I would suggest you review the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, it is an excellent short, concise overview of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Please note the template says "defamatory or libellous.""
Yes. Both are spurious and obviously wrong. What's your point?
I await your apology for trying to shout me down by aggressively accusing me of edit-warring when you were doing the exact same thing yourself.
- If you can't see how your edit was defamatory, I don't know what to tell you. I and others have tried to provide you with guidance and have been met with nothing but hostility and edit warring. What I will tell you is you are on a very rapid path to being block for treating Wikipedia like a battleground. If all you want to do is either force that edit through or force a template on to my talk page, I don't think this is going to end well for you. However, it's certainly not too late to pull out of this tailspin and become a welcome and productive member of the editing community. The choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I note that you don't offer an actual argument as to why you say my edit was defamatory. This is because you obviously can't.
What I want from you is an apology for being a bully and trying to shut me down through templates when you were guilty of the exact same behaviour yourself. You can't have it both ways. Either we both get templates on our respective talk pages, or neither of us do. Which do you want?Iguanu555 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Advising you that you will be blocked if you continue treating Wikipedia as a battleground is not bullying, and we don't warn editors who volunteer to ensure our core policies regarding neutrality and living persons are followed. In fact, we thank them. In addition, reverting blatant BLP-violations such as yours is one of the very few exemptions to the edit warring policy. You can either educate yourself on the requirements to edit here, which have been provided above and in this message, or you can find some online message board or blog to express your point of view instead. If your intention is to continue demanding apologies and attacking others with unfounded accusations of bullying, you will be blocked and the latter option will be the only one available to you.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I notice you don't warn Beeblebrox for his unfounded accusations of defamation and libel - which constitute obvious bullying. Interesting omission that.Iguanu555 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Iguanu555 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Beeblebrox made unfounded accusations of libel and defamation against me. These allegations are ludicrous and obviously wrong, and I have defended myself accordingly. However, merely for defending myself in this way, I have been blocked for making 'unfounded accusations of bullying' - even though Beeblebrox is the one who has made unfounded accusations of defamation and libel. Iguanu555 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You appear to be making this claim because Beeblebrox used the **standard** template-warning, template:uw-defamatory1. This appears to be a response to this edit of yours. The templated warning was entirely appropriate given your edit. Furthermore, your block is appropriate and justified. Yamla (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
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.
"The templated warning was entirely appropriate given your edit."
Given that what I said was neither defamation nor libel, that is obviously wrong. Kindly explain why making unfounded accusations of defamation/libel is ok, whilst calling them out for it is not?Iguanu555 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is all over one edit. If you get that emotionally invested in a single edit, you will never be able to be a productive editor. Editing here means having to accept that your work will be changed, criticized, or reverted. It happens to everyone, all the time. If there has to be a days-long back-and-forth about every single edit you make, that isn't a good use of other volunteer's time and energy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
You chose to make unfounded accusations of libel and defamation. Not me. You could end this 'back and forth' right now by having the good grace to admit you were wrong to do that and apologise. Are you going to do that?Iguanu555 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
This has gone on long enough. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.