User talk:ManofThoth

The article Blurpinkle has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. See WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blurpinkle, to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the usual procedure is to hammer together the article, either on a word processor or in the sandbox, before creating and posting it. Unlike some portions of the Internet, an "Under Construction" sign is not acceptable in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been submitted for deletion under a more formal process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blurpinkle to allow for more input. AfDs are normally kept open for five days, but can be closed earlier if the opinions and evidence are overwhelming or kept open longer if the discussion is inconclusive. You are absolutely welcome to provide your own input. Thanks, and take care. --Finngall ^talk 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Gladys Ridgeford

An editor has nominated Gladys Ridgeford, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Ridgeford and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Hi, please be more careful about checking the minor edit box. The edit you made to the okapi article, would not in my opinion be a minor edit.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you marked this edit and this one as "minor". Again, these weren't minor edits, which are those which do not significantly change the content of an article or talk page, such as spelling or punctuation corrections, or layout changes. This is explained in more detail at Help:Minor edit. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

You reverted this edit of mine with this edit, in which your edit summary said: "revert vandalism and destructive edit by last user". You also referred to my edit in similar terms (and far worse) at Talk:Okapi#Pop culture section.

I'd like to draw your attention to a fundamental tenet of WP: Good Faith, which requires us to assume good faith on the part of other editors unless there is very clear evidence to the contrary. Consequently it is a serious abuse of wiki etiquette to make accusations of vandalism to edits which are not, let alone making offensive personal remarks. You may have disagreed with my edit, and you may even think that it damaged the article, but by using "vandalism" you are assuming that I did it in order to disrupt the article deliberately. You will surely agree that I was trying to improve it, however misguided you may think I was.

I have been editing WP long enough not to be particularly offended, but there are plenty of other editors who would not be so tolerant by any means. Best regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well enough spoken, and perhaps I should have used better wording, but to me, when their is a discussion going on, and someone just comes and wipes out an entire section without waiting for at least the discussion and various points of interest from all contributors to at least be heard, it is as if you decided yourself 'God' of that article for that time, and many deletes of huge chunks are defined as Wikipedia 'vandalism' so that is the term I used. Why didn't you join the discussion and let it have itself out first instead of just absolutely wiping everything? You seem personable enough and reasonable enough here. Because you are not aware of a certain author's notability or because it is your opinion that the author is not notable should not give you authority to make an absolute deletion of other contributor's efforts. We are all curious writers here to spend enough time contributing to this thing that I don't think anyone is trying to 'hijack' the okapi entry, but some people have just come in and wiped entire sections of even some of the scientific parts they didn't like and replaced it with "the okapi is a magical unicorn" so when you wiped the whole section I assumed you were one of those people. I apologize in this assumption - I have spent a lot of genuine time contributing to something only to have it 'wiped' so perhaps I have a fierce response to that sort of thing. It certainly seems that if any animal would be an inside joke in literature it could certainly be the Okapi. I am doing my best when I have time to investigate this because I find it fascinating. I as well thought the animal was not real... for all I know until I myself go to a zoo and see one myself I would not have believed it. Should that give me the authority to delete the entire article as a sham though? No. I'm not saying you did that, but just trying to make a point.

From what I am finding now, the okapi seems to be like the wilhelm scream...

ManofThoth (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. (By the way, we normally inset each comment by one more, including the signature). Richard New Forest (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of YouTube personalities

added a link pointing to Blackout

Michael Biggins

added a link pointing to Improv

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Michael Biggins

added links pointing to Footy and Piper High School

Periscope (app)

added a link pointing to Blackout

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Biggins. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C53F:830:3855:D8E5:F5DC:B874 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nut of the discussion is that WP:BLP is a policy that must be enforced, and all the claims that don't have high quality sources (ie: passing WP:RS) have been removed, as has some of the promotional speak, or what we call "puffery". Yes, this means it is shorter, but the goal is to have the page conform to the expectations of Wikipedia, and be consistent with our policy on Biographies of Living Persons. You appear to have a conflict of interest of some kind, either the entertainer, a friend, or overly zealous fan. This is fine, I'm not as dogmatic as others about COI editing, but it still must be within policy. Assuming the best in faith, that you are just a huge fan, you still have to realize that you are more inclined to use puffed up prose than someone who is neutral, which is why it is important that you actually listen to those that are saying it needs to be trimmed. I would also remind you that WP:BRD is a system of edit and dispute resolution that is considered the gold standard here, and according to BRD, reverting back to the previous, unsourced versions would be consisted edit warring. You are welcome to take your case to the talk page of the article and build a consensus first, but blind reverting or putting back unsourced, or improperly sourced material would also violate WP:BLP, one of our strongest policies. Finally, I've looked at your previous discussions and know you can be quite reasonable, or you can be reactive (if I may be so blunt). I suggest being reasonable and working with the people who trimmed the article, and encourage them to help you, rather than get mad about it. I'm one of those people, btw. If we can find sources and the material is encyclopedic in nature, and can be added without sounding promotional, then great, that is what we all want, more info in a quality article. If not, you have to expect it will not be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Michael Biggins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 8 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Restored vandalism mass deletions of well sourced material on a historical internet, radio and tv personality. Requested consensus via the talk page as well as page protection as multiple vandals started deleting mass chunks of well sourced material. Then requested page protection and am doing so again so I can truly rework the article and remove promotional sounding text or extraneous links without removing or mass deletion which is what has been happening. See talk page on Michael Biggins ManofThoth (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)ManOfThoth[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTVANDAL. This is a content dispute; commenting on the talk page does not give you the right to edit-war. I'll also note that editors commented about you incorrectly calling them vandals as far back as 2011. It seems you haven't learned. Huon (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2015 (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.

I left you a message on my talk, but I didn't cover the "vandalism" thing. Look, you have got to stop calling people vandals or you will keep getting blocked. That alone is blockworthy, and now you have put yourself in the spotlight. Vandalism is stuff like "Bob is a dick" or random characters, or other input designed solely to undermine the encyclopedia. Calling good faith edits you disagree with is incivil and it is blockworthy. If you keep doing it, you will be blocked again. If you come back to the article and revert back, you will be blocked again. Not by me, I'm editing so involved, but I promise any other admin that sees it will block you in skippy minute. You have to use the talk page and discuss changes, find sources, etc. Now that you have made sure you are known to edit war, the threshold is going to be even lower to get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Dennis but I completely disagree. The edits that were done were NOT done in good faith. They have an Actor, Filmmaker, Broadcaster listed as a Comedian, Youtuber for christ's sake. That shows that the editors who butchered the article didn't even take the time to review what they were chopping. I consider that vandalism. We disagree on that point. Now, because I have said that, I am under attack, and basically you are telling me in a mafia type hush hush way to shuttup. Well I'm not going to shuttup. What was done was wrong and not in good faith, and not only that but it has left a completely inaccurate article of a living person who is a performer. It completely misrepresents him. See my post on the talk page. I won't do any more reverses, but I am going to try and do a real and accurate entire rewrite and I will keep it as brief as possible but sourced and accurate. He's NOT a youtuber, he just has a channel he dumps stuff on, and he only does stand up occasionally. The article is just plain WRONG information now. It's akin to saying Zebras roam New York.ManofThoth (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)ManofThoth[reply]

Zebras? I thought you liked okapis better, considering this edit. I also just had a look at Blurpinkle; it seems you've been promoting yourself here since 2007. I see that Sitush just ran into you in Trickster. I'm going to have another look at these edits, at all your edits. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were IP-socking on Talk:Okapi a couple of years ago, there's no doubt. And there's this, in an article about an app. And I forgot about Prank call, most recently with this edit. And a high school radio station. I think that's enough evidence for me: I'm going to block you, for spamming and for being not here to improve the encyclopedia. (I'm going to block HattedOne as well, whe fessed up to being Biggins, and who sounds and edits edits remarkably like you.) Dennis Brown, I think the case is clear but I'd be more than happy for you to look over this too and unblock if you think I'm missing positive non-Blackout related edits, or if you think this editor's edits to that Blackout person were in fact neutral enough. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one courtesy of Sitush. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, looking at Michael Biggins, I see two sources are the album cover itself, to prove the discography. It needs someone to just bring it up to WP:RS standards, if it can be. The more I look at it, the less I see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]