User talk:REvolution1nAction
February 2009[edit]
Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, as you did in The Terminator, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do NOT add spoiler tags. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Demolition Man (film). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings[edit]
Please read WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia does not include spoiler warnings. J.delanoygabsadds 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
You have been blocked for a period of time because of your refusal to stop adding spoiler warnings, despite many requests to do so. See J.Delanoy's note above for the guideline. Feel free to request an unblock by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you will need to convince us that you will cease the behaviour that led to being blocked. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
REvolution1nAction (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. These summaries do not fit the meaning of the word concise, if they were there would be no need for a spoiler alert. As mentioned in WP:SPOILER, spoiler alerts were removed because plot summaries were not intended to be as lengthy as they are (meaning they were not intended to divulge any detailed information). If there were more pagespace devoted to the larger cultural impact of the movie, than it would be appropriate to include such a detailed plot summary. The inclusion of spoilers within the plot summary is contrary to wiki policy and necessitates the breaking of another wiki policy in order to correct it.
Decline reason:
Please state an actual reason why we should overturn your block. I understand that you have a particular opinion about how a particular wiki-policy should be implemented, however, you weren't blocked for having that opinion. So asserting it will not get you unblocked. Please review the guide to appealing blocks and make an unblock request that shows you understand the conduct you were blocked for and that you will not seek to renew it. Alternately, if you feel the block itself was inappropriate, you may say so (provided you have some evidence to back up that assertion). Thank you. — Protonk (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2009 (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.
Therefore a more appropriate action on your part would be to edit the plot summary to be more concise, rather than adding a warning that does not comply with the guideline. Kevin (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
REvolution1nAction (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this issue was erroneously sent to dispute system by Tool2Die4 as vandalism for the reason of bad formatting. J.Delanoy later changed reason for dispute to policy regarding spoilers, and pointed me towards rules regarding spoilers. Those rules explicitly said that because articles were expected to cover all aspects of a film spoiler warnings were not necessary. However, these articles are generally limited to the plot summary and a list of characters which does not constitute a 'larger coverage of a fictional work' as demanded by WP:PLOT 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' #2. As WP:SPOIL explicitly says that an editor may not delete information from an article simply because they feel it spoils the plot, and the plot summary isn't part of any larger coverage of the film, the reason given to avoid noting a spoiler is largely void. The alternative would be to remove the bulk of the plot summary until such a time as additional sections have been created as they are inappropriate according to wiki guidelines. I would ask you to ask yourself, which is more appropriately called vandalism? Removing the bulk of the content from a page, or prefixing it with an appropriate label? I will stop adding the spoiler alert tag (no matter how appropriate) and would ask for instruction as to what should be removed in order to bring film articles into line. On another note, User:PatShearing is not affiliated with my actions. We are sharing an IP, but he has nothing to do with my dispute.
Decline reason:
When a brand-new account jumps right in with edit warring about a disputed policy point, it is hard to assume good faith. A 24-hour block is the least one could expect if an admin felt there was no other way to get your attention. You don't seem to be a new editor, and you'd have more credibility if you made these arguments using your previous account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2009 (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.
REvolution1nAction (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have never created an account for wikipedia before last night. I am new to this site and don't quite understand your whole process. I don't see why I would need credibility when I have reason. I was told to stop editing for formatting reasons, which did not apply, then I was show a spoiler system which showed that what I was doing didn't apply to your guidelines either. If you really don't want a spoiler alert, then you should follow wiki guidelines as they are pretty clear in stating that spoiler alerts are not required because it is implied that the plot summary will either be sparse or detailed depending on the context (the information in the rest of the article). I didn't know any of this at the time. I was just putting spoiler alerts on spoiler information. The wiki guidelines that were pointed out to me explicitly say that these articles are not properly made for wikipedia, and that what I had been doing shouldn't be done because the situation I was dealing with should not be as it is(according to the guidelines, spoiler alerts are completely unnecessary). And I agree. However, these articles contravene the guidelines which made spoiler alerts unnecessary and if I'd known at the time what I do now, I would have pared down the articles instead. Furthermore, this would never have been sent to dispute if another editor hadn't given erroneous reasons for vandalism and then deleted all changes I'd done, including those unrelated to spoiler alerts. If a clear reason, such as the one given by Warlordwolf on Demolition_Man_(film) regarding policy, had been attached to the undos I wouldn't have added them back. Due to Tool2Die4 use of authoritarian speech (while providing inappropriate reasons not to continue what I was doing) I did not believe J.delanoy was anything more than another troll like Tool2Die4, especially considering he linked to a policy that stated the reasoning behind spoiler alerts (which didn't apply to the articles in question, but would have if those articles followed wiki guidelines). I may have acted rashly, but Tool2Die4 had me believing that authorities on this site were malicious as well as ignorant, and that my conduct was normal for the site (as Tool2Die4 demonstrated).
Decline reason:
No, for the same reason as your other account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 5 February 2009 (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.