User talk:Supermann/Archives/2021/September

August 2021

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. While you haven't been posting on user talk pages, you have blatantly been asking for inclusionists only to help you, which is probably even worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have only met deletionists so far. Asking help for inclusionists is simply to balance it out. It’s David vs Goliath now. Supermann (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See, that sort of battleground mentality is exactly what destroyed the so-called "inclusionist" movement here. They were unable to accept that most people do not consider themselves on one side or the other but rather take each article on its own merits, which is how it is supposed to work. Probably easier to accept that the community as a whole (not just the deletionist boogeyman) strongly supports having notability guidelines, and that not every subject is notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

But then you forgot about "Wikipedia has no firm rules" in the Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Supermann (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't forget it, I live it every day, but I don't see how it applies in this situation. Please just don't canvass for only people who think exactly like you do in the future, that's really the important point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am just following up with existing people who have commented. Not sure why I was on your radar in the first place. I didn't canvass anyone specifically new. I was just following advice and finding avenues where people could give a fresh set of eyes to the writing so that they don't get plagued by the negativity from the rejectors who are deciding what millions of readers should read. This kind of totalitarianism is against the Five Pillars. Supermann (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw your blatant canvassing for help from inclusionists at the help desk. Your hyperbolic accusations of totalitarianism are comical but not compelling. All I've done is speak to you about Wikipedia policy. Have a nice day. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If help desk is not the place, then something is clearly wrong with the support system as indicated. Have a good rest of the weekend. Supermann (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You guys are letting guidelines and essays trump the policy. That just doesn't feel right, btw. Supermann (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Comments like this are simply unacceptable. This is a collaborative project. If you can't remain calm and engage in polite debate with others, you can expect to be swiftly blocked the next time this kind of thing happens. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Nikita (TV series). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Sleptlapps (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the weirdest accusation of all time when it's about free access to encyclopedic information. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you go down this dark path. Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks but no thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I read that diff and it is promotional(intentional or not) and not appropriate for the article. Please avoid this sort of content in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's unintentional because I didn't realize it's a press release, but that doesn't deny it's still free without any subscription monthly payment. Nobody is being asked to pay for anything. It's like Robinhood in this capitalistic world. Denying readers this key intel is more like asking them to either download piracy or buy bluray release. Thanks but no thanks. I don't have money to spare, no matter how much I like the show. Supermann (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC this is not the first and last time he will do this. He has already been the subject of various admin noticeboard incidents regarding his behavious first here, second here, and third here and he was given a final warning here. This behaviour of accusing me of bad faith clearly violated the final warning and is comparing me to a persecutor. I don't believe anyone should be behaving like this to other users as this could really hurt someones feelings. Isn't there anything that can be done about this? Sleptlapps (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've referred this behaviour to the current ANI thread on their behaviour here. I'm in agreement that their actions and refusal to retract their uncivil statements is beyond the pale CiphriusKane (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Final warning regarding advertising

If you attempt to advertise anything again, especially CW Seed, you will be blocked to prevent further spamming. I already know you don't think it is advertising but this is and you have already been told this. It is not relevant to the article about the show. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How is this “advertise” when the disadvantage of CW Seed have been discussed? Relevance seems to be in the eyes of the beholders. Your reasoning beats me. Do what you have to do with your coercion. I finished catching up the show by CW Seed without any piracy and paying a single dime for any product advertised during the commercial breaks. I am proud of myself. Readers can tell the censorship you imposed. We agree to disagree. Supermann (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Gravedancing

This is completely unacceptable. You are expected to be civil in all your interactions with other users, even if they are blocked, and celebrating their block is an extreme violation of this. You were warned about such incivility just under 2 weeks ago. Please read over WP:CIVIL, as civility is not optional CiphriusKane (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If you read what you cited, "Describing factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a ban/block" is NOT GRAVEDANCING. That editor tagged me as a promo hack when I am NOT. I was just giving you context. If you refuse to see, I respectfully disagree. Supermann (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Insulting editors who are now blocked/banned/retired. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question is unlikely to see the insult, and if they do see it won't respond to it. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees the insult because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together." Posting "Justice!" to the block is an insult CiphriusKane (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is about fairness. I fully expect they will come back after accepting some offer and reflect on their behavior as I reflect on mine. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CiphriusKane (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)